Deep-Sea Mining Goldmine or Fool’s Gold? The Metals Company (TMC) Stock Analysis 2025

Key Facts & Figures 📊

• 2025 Stock Surge: TMC stock has skyrocketed over 400% year-to-date, recently trading around $7+ (market cap ~$2.6 billion) ^{[1] [2]}. Shares are up ~450% in the past 52 weeks amid investor excitement over deep-sea minerals and EV demand.
• No Revenue (Yet), Big Losses: The Metals Company is pre-revenue and reported a Q2 2025 net loss of $74.3 million ^[3]. It held $115.8 million cash as of June 30, 2025 ^[4], providing runway into 2027 ^[5], but ongoing losses mean additional funding may be needed before production.
• Strategic Backing: In 2025 TMC secured major funding from industry partners – Korea Zinc invested $85.2M for ~5% stake (at $4.34/share) ^[6] – and a $37M financing led by Allseas and other investors at $3.00/share ^[7]. This fresh capital injection gives TMC at least 2 years of operating cash ^[8] while it navigates development and permitting.
• First Production by 2027? TMC aims to start commercial deep-sea mining in Q4 2027 if permits are secured ^[9]. It holds rights to a massive polymetallic nodule resource in the Pacific CCZ with an estimated $23.6 billion NPV (net present value) across its project areas ^{[10] [11]}. A 2025 study declared the world’s first deep-sea mineral reserves (51 Mt probable nodules) for its NORI-D project ^[12].
• Analyst Outlook: Wall Street is divided – consensus rating is “Hold” (5 analysts: 3 Buy, 1 Hold, 1 Sell) ^[13]. The average 12-mo price target is ~$7.33 (essentially flat vs. current price) with a high of $11 and low of $3.75 ^[14]. Notably, Wedbush recently upgraded TMC to Outperform with an $11 target, citing first-mover advantage and U.S. support – over 100% upside from mid-2025 levels ^{[15] [16]}.
• Recent Developments: TMC’s stock spiked in mid-2025 after an $85M Korea Zinc deal and U.S. regulatory progress (NOAA confirmed TMC’s licenses in compliance) ^[17]. Shares then pulled back ~35% from late-July highs after TMC’s large Q2 loss reminder ^[18]. The company also published positive pilot mining results (sediment plume impacts lower than feared) and declared its first reserves, strengthening its case for commercialization.
• Key Risks:Regulatory uncertainty looms large – the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA) has delayed global mining rules again (no Mining Code agreed in 2025) ^[19], while many countries (37 at last count) advocate a moratorium on deep-sea mining due to environmental concerns ^{[20] [21]}. Environmental opposition from NGOs is intense, warning of “irreversible biodiversity loss” if seabed mining proceeds ^[22]. TMC’s path to revenue also depends on successfully scaling unproven tech and obtaining permits under either an international or U.S. regime – all while managing cash burn and potential dilution.

The Metals Company Overview: Undersea Minerals for the EV Boom

The Metals Company (“TMC”) is a deep-sea minerals exploration firm on a mission to harvest polymetallic nodules – often called “a battery in a rock” – from the ocean floor ^{[23] [24]}. These potato-sized nodules are extraordinarily rich in critical battery metals: nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese. TMC’s business model is to collect nodules from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the Pacific Ocean (in international waters between Hawaii and Mexico) and process them into high-grade metals needed for electric vehicle (EV) batteries, renewable energy technology, and steel alloys ^[25].

Unlike traditional land-based mines, TMC touts its approach as a “lower-impact” alternative to sourcing battery metals. The company has a “dual mission”: (1) supply metals for the clean energy transition with minimal environmental and social impact, and (2) help transition to a circular metal economy ^[26]. In practical terms, TMC plans to lift nodules to the surface, bring them to shore, and refine them with no tailings, no deforestation, and near-zero solid waste ^[27] – a stark contrast to open-pit mines which often generate large waste piles and habitat destruction.

TMC was founded as DeepGreen Metals and went public via SPAC in 2021. It controls exploration rights (through subsidiaries) to three large nodule contract areas in the CCZ, sponsored by the Pacific Island nations of Nauru, Tonga, and Kiribati under the ISA framework ^[28]. In total, the company estimates over 1.6 billion tonnes of nodules in its areas – containing enough nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese to “electrify the entire U.S. passenger vehicle fleet” according to TMC’s claims ^[29]. In August 2025, TMC’s SEC-compliant reports declared 51 million tonnes of probable reserves (NORI-D area) and huge additional resources in other zones ^{[30] [31]}. This underscores the potential scale: an Arthur D. Little study valued the total accessible seabed metals opportunity at $20 trillion ^[32].

However, turning this undersea treasure into reality is a formidable task. The company remains pre-revenue and in development stage – essentially a bet that it can pioneer an entirely new mining industry. TMC’s operations so far include years of environmental baseline studies, small-scale pilot collections, and engineering development with partners. It has no commercial production yet, and will need to overcome technical, regulatory, and environmental hurdles before any revenue gushes in.

Products & Operations: If successful, The Metals Company will produce several commodity products: battery-grade nickel and cobalt sulfates, copper cathodes, and manganese alloy feedstock ^[33]. The raw input for all of these is the polymetallic nodule itself – a rounded rock rich in metals formed over millions of years on the seafloor. TMC’s plan is to use an integrated system: an undersea collector vehicle gathers nodules off the abyssal plain, a riser pipe system lifts them ~4 km up to a production vessel, and then they are shipped as wet nodules to onshore facilities for processing. By avoiding mining of ore and simply collecting loose nodules, TMC hopes to eliminate the need for drilling, blasting, or rock crushing.

Illustration: A rendering of TMC’s subsea nodule collector vehicle on the Pacific ocean floor. The Metals Company and partner Allseas developed this crawler system to vacuum up polymetallic nodules with minimal sediment disturbance (the device was trialed in 2022). By lifting nodules from the seabed, TMC aims to extract metals with no mine tailings, no deforestation, and a smaller environmental footprint than land mining ^[34].

TMC’s key industrial partner is Allseas, a major offshore engineering firm. Allseas converted a 228-meter drillship (renamed “Hidden Gem”) to serve as the first ever dedicated nodule mining vessel ^[35]. In 2022, TMC and Allseas conducted a pilot collection trial in TMC’s NORI-D license area, successfully lifting over 3,000 tons of nodules and monitoring environmental impacts ^[36]. The pilot demonstrated the basic viability of the collection system. Notably, preliminary findings on sediment plumes (the cloudy sediment disturbed by the collector) were encouraging: TMC reported in late 2023 that plumes stayed near the seafloor and did not disperse widely in the water column ^{[37] [38]}. In fact, ROV surveys found marine life (e.g. a black coral) still alive just outside the collector tracks one year after the test ^{[39] [40]} – data TMC cites to argue that deep-sea mining impacts can be manageable. (Environmental groups, as discussed later, are far from convinced by these findings.)

Onshore, TMC has run processing pilot programs to prove it can turn nodules into valuable metals. It completed a pilot smelting campaign in 2021 producing a high-grade alloy of nickel-copper-cobalt ^[41], and has been working on refining methods (including a hydrometallurgical circuit to produce battery-grade salts). The company ultimately envisions an integrated supply chain: collect nodules at sea -> process into Ni, Co, Cu, Mn products -> feed the EV battery and steel industries. By being vertically integrated, TMC could potentially capture more value, though it also means tackling multiple engineering challenges simultaneously.

2025 Stock Performance: A Wild Ride on Waves of Hype 🌊

So far, 2025 has been a breakout year for TMC’s stock. After languishing as a penny stock through 2022–2023, The Metals Company caught fire in early 2025. Shares started the year around $1.50-$2, then exploded to over $7 by mid-2025, more than quadrupling in value ^[42]. TMC became one of the year’s hottest small-cap stocks, riding a wave of interest in anything related to EV materials and U.S. critical mineral policy.

Several catalysts fueled this spectacular rally:

• Trump Administration Support: In April 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump (who returned to office in January 2025) signed an Executive Order to boost deep-sea mining. This order directed regulators to expedite seabed mining permits under the U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and even consider strategic stockpiling of seabed metals ^{[43] [44]}. The policy aimed to reduce reliance on China for rare earths and battery metals. TMC’s stock jumped over 40% in the days after the order ^[45]. By July 2025, TMC shares were up ~450% year-over-year, reflecting optimism that U.S. government support would accelerate its path to production ^[46].
• Strategic Investment News: In June 2025, Korea Zinc (a global metals smelter) agreed to invest $85.2 million in TMC ^[47]. This was a landmark deal: TMC’s first major industry partner endorsement (outside of Allseas). Korea Zinc bought ~19.6 million shares at $4.34 (about a 5% stake) and received warrants, signaling confidence in TMC’s project ^[48]. The stock surged on this news, as it bolstered TMC’s balance sheet and credibility. Earlier, in May, TMC had also raised $37M via a direct equity offering at $3.00 ^[49] – so by mid-year the company had over $115M cash, easing near-term dilution fears ^[50]. These cash infusions underpinned the rally and gave TMC an estimated runway through 2026 ^[51].
• Regulatory Progress (U.S. Permits): Another mid-2025 boost came when NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) – which regulates deep-sea mining for U.S.-incorporated entities – confirmed that TMC’s subsidiary’s exploration license applications were in full compliance with U.S. law ^[52]. In late July, NOAA advanced TMC’s two applications into the final certification stage (expected ~100 days) ^[53]. This effectively signaled that TMC would secure U.S. exploration licenses for its target areas, giving it a viable “plan B” path to mine under U.S. jurisdiction if the international (ISA) route remains stalled. TMC’s stock popped on this news, as it suggested the company could start pilot mining under U.S. permits and potentially get an American commercial license even without ISA rules in place ^[54]. CEO Gerard Barron hailed “strong signals from Washington” and a clearer U.S. pathway to production ^[55].

By late July 2025, TMC hit a 52-week high in the upper-$7s. At that point the stock had +400% YTD gains, making it a multi-bagger for early 2025 investors.

However, the ride has been volatile – a true roller coaster. After the summer euphoria, TMC shares pulled back sharply in August. The trigger was the company’s Q2 2025 earnings release (August 14), which reminded the market that TMC is still bleeding cash and far from commercialization. The company reported a $74.3 million net loss for Q2 alone ^[56], driven in part by non-cash charges but also ongoing operating expenses. This sizable loss “reminded investors just how far this mining company is from turning a profit” ^[57]. In the weeks following, TMC’s stock fell over 35% from its late-July peak】 ^[58], dipping to the $5 range by early September.

Since then, TMC has stabilized and traded in the mid-to-high single digits through early October 2025. The stock is still up hugely year-to-date, but the August setback injected some caution. The volatility reflects TMC’s nature as a speculative story stock – driven by news and sentiment swings rather than fundamentals (there are no earnings yet to anchor valuation). Headline risk is high: positive news (e.g. a new partner, policy support) can send it soaring, while any disappointment (delays, financing concerns, etc.) can cause steep drops.

Investors considering TMC now should be prepared for continued volatility. As the company moves toward the critical 2026–2027 timeframe (when it hopes to transition from exploration to exploitation), each piece of news on permitting, partnerships, or test results could whipsaw the stock. Year-to-date, traders who timed the waves were rewarded, but latecomers buying at peaks have felt the whiplash.

Future Outlook and Analyst Expectations 🔭

What’s next for The Metals Company, and what do the experts predict? As of Q4 2025, analysts have a cautious but intrigued outlook on TMC. There is a wide range of potential outcomes priced into the stock, from multi-bagger success to collapse – accordingly, Wall Street’s forecasts vary dramatically.

Consensus Rating & Targets: According to MarketBeat, TMC’s consensus rating is “Hold” based on 5 analysts covering the stock ^[59]. Within that, opinions diverge: 3 analysts rate it a Buy, 1 a Hold, and 1 a Sell ^[60]. Price targets range from a low of $3.75 to a high of $11.00, reflecting very different visions of TMC’s future ^[61]. The average target of ~$7.33 is essentially around the current trading price ^[62], suggesting modest downside (-1%) from recent levels. In short, the street is in “wait-and-see” mode – recognizing TMC’s huge potential but also its significant risks.

Notably, Wedbush Securities has emerged as one of the more bullish voices. In June 2025, Wedbush upgraded TMC to Outperform and raised its price target to $11 (from $6) ^{[63] [64]}. Analyst Dan Ives (better known for covering tech stocks) argued that TMC could be a major beneficiary of U.S. government support for critical minerals. After Trump’s pro-mining executive order, Ives expressed increased confidence in TMC’s growth prospects, seeing it as “well-positioned to be a key player in the critical metal supply chain” with a “first-mover advantage in deep sea mining” ^{[65] [66]}. Wedbush’s $11 target implies significant upside (over +50% from October prices, and >100% from when the call was made in mid-2025). This bullish case hinges on TMC executing its plan and the U.S. enabling the project (possibly via funding or off-take agreements).

On the other end, at least one analyst has a Sell rating (and sub-$4 target), essentially betting that TMC will falter or that the stock’s 2025 surge was overdone. Even those positive on the concept often acknowledge it’s a long-dated story – meaningful revenue isn’t expected until 2028+ if all goes well, so any DCF-style valuation is extremely sensitive to assumptions.

Earnings Forecasts: Given the long pre-revenue stage, there’s minimal analyst consensus on near-term financials. TMC is expected to continue running at a loss for several years, funding its pilot mining system build-out, environmental studies, and corporate costs. Key financial metrics like EPS or EBITDA are not very meaningful at this stage – in fact, TMC has no P/E (negative earnings) and no EV/EBITDA (negative EBITDA). Instead, analysts and investors are focused on milestones and cash burn. The company itself indicates it has sufficient cash for about two more years of development as of mid-2025 ^[67]. By late 2026, if commercial mining is still not approved or imminent, TMC would likely need either a joint-venture investment or another capital raise to bridge to 2027 production.

Analysts will therefore be watching upcoming catalysts:

• Regulatory decisions: Will the International Seabed Authority finally adopt a Mining Code in 2026? Or will the U.S. step in and issue TMC a full commercial license under domestic law? These decisions could make or break the timeline. TMC has guided that it plans to formally apply for an exploitation license for its NORI-D area – it targeted late 2023 for ISA application ^[68], which has likely been submitted and is pending review. Any positive signal on permitting could prompt upgrades or higher targets.
• Pilot Mining & EIA: TMC still needs to complete its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the ISA and demonstrate that commercial operations won’t cause unacceptable harm. The company has conducted multiple offshore campaigns and is compiling data. A final EIA submission and approval (or any major findings) will be a huge swing factor in de-risking the project.
• Offtake Agreements: Securing customers for its future production (e.g. battery manufacturers or automakers) could validate the business model. If TMC announces an offtake MOU or partnership with a Tesla/Panasonic or similar, analysts would likely take it as a bullish signal on demand for seafloor metals.
• Additional Funding/Partners: Conversely, watch for how TMC boosts its capital if needed. So far, strategic equity deals (Korea Zinc, Allseas, etc.) have been the route. If TMC manages to bring in a new deep-pocket partner (perhaps a global miner or automaker) on favorable terms, it could extend its cash runway and improve sentiment. On the other hand, a large dilutive equity offering or costly debt could sour the market.

In summary, the future forecast for TMC is highly binary. If everything goes right – regulations permit mining by 2027, TMC hits its project milestones, and metals prices remain strong – the company could tap into a multi-decade, multi-billion dollar resource, potentially making today’s $2–3B market cap look cheap. However, any major setback (regulatory rejection, environmental show-stopper, or inability to raise capital) could render the stock overvalued even at $7.

At present, the objectively likely scenario is that TMC continues to trade largely on news. Don’t expect meaningful revenue or earnings in 2025 or 2026. Analysts will be updating their models (which currently likely assume first revenue ~2028) as new information comes. For now, they are keeping one foot on the gas (acknowledging the huge TAM and momentum) and one foot on the brake (recognizing the unproven nature and risks). The consensus ‘Hold’ encapsulates this balanced uncertainty ^[69].

Recent News & Catalysts 🚀📰

TMC’s journey in 2025 has been eventful. Here are some of the most impactful recent news and announcements affecting the stock:

• July 2025 – U.S. Policy Shift: As mentioned, President Trump’s April executive order on deep-sea mining became a major narrative ^{[70] [71]}. By July, media outlets reported that “Investors are ready to go all-in on deep sea mining”, noting TMC’s big stock jump in response ^{[72] [73]}. The order not only expedited NOAA permits but also encouraged the government to consider taking stakes or stockpiling metals. This raised speculation that TMC (as a prime U.S.-linked player) might benefit from federal support. Indeed, such speculation materialized in other cases – e.g. Lithium Americas (LAC) saw its stock surge 74% in one day in September on reports the U.S. government was looking to acquire a 10% stake ^[74]. While TMC has no confirmed government stake, the trend of U.S. intervention in critical mineral companies has boosted the entire sector’s valuations.
• August 2025 – First-Ever Nodule Reserves Declared: On August 4, 2025, TMC announced a landmark technical milestone – it published two NI 43-101 / S-K 1300 compliant studies, including a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) for its NORI-D project ^[75]. The PFS was the world’s first to declare proven or probable mineral reserves for a deep-sea nodule project ^[76]. It pegged NORI-D’s NPV at $5.5 billion (at a 27% IRR) with 18-year mine life, producing ~70k tons Cu, 97k tons Ni, 7k tons Co per year at steady state ^[77]. In addition, an Initial Economic Assessment of TMC’s broader areas yielded an extra $18.1B NPV potential ^[78]. These reports were a positive validation that the project can be economically viable – essentially providing third-party backing to TMC’s long-term projections. The stock reaction was neutral-to-positive; while the numbers are huge, investors know they hinge on obtaining permits. Still, formally quantifying the resource’s value helped TMC’s narrative (and was likely aimed at both regulators and investors to show the prize at stake).
• August 2025 – NOAA Compliance Notice: On Aug 11, 2025, TMC received formal notice from NOAA that its applications were in full compliance under the U.S. Deep-Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, with priority rights affirmed for its two target areas ^[79]. This news confirmed that NOAA found TMC’s exploration plans and financial/technical qualifications satisfactory. The applications moved into a final 100-day certification phase ^[80]. This was big news for TMC, effectively giving it a green light on the U.S. side for exploration. Certification (expected by Q4 2025) would then set the stage for TMC to potentially apply for a U.S. commercial recovery permit as soon as regulations allow ^[81]. The significance: TMC is no longer solely at the mercy of ISA’s timeline; it has a parallel track with U.S. oversight. This development contributed to the late-July share price spike (up to ~$7.50) before the subsequent pullback ^[82].
• August 14, 2025 – Q2 Results & Corporate Update: TMC’s Q2 earnings release (though TMC has no revenue, it reports expenses and updates) was a mix of good and bad news. The bad: a large net loss ($74M) and continued negative cash flow ^[83], reminding investors of dilution risk. The good: all the milestones discussed (NOAA, PFS studies, Korea Zinc deal) were highlighted, and management confidently reaffirmed a Q4 2027 production start target ^[84]. CEO Gerard Barron’s commentary was optimistic, calling the PFS a “defining moment” showing a “clear, capital-efficient path to first production” and lauding the Korea Zinc partnership as strengthening the “route to market” ^[85]. He also noted “strong signals from Washington” and that each regulatory step “reduces risk, sharpens our timeline, and strengthens the investment case” ^[86]. Despite the upbeat tone, the market focused on the cash burn, and the stock dipped on these results, as noted, losing some of the summer’s gains.
• June 2025 – Sponsorship Agreements & Board Appointments: TMC took steps to solidify relationships with its sponsoring nations. In June and August, it signed updated agreements with the governments of Nauru and Tonga to ensure those countries continue their sponsorship in return for economic benefits and a share in any future U.S.-regulated mining as well ^{[87] [88]}. This was important because TMC’s original plan hinged on Nauru sponsoring an ISA application – by renewing the partnership, TMC keeps Nauru on side even as it pursues the U.S. route (the new agreements guarantee Nauru and Tonga will get “continuity benefits” even if mining happens under a U.S. permit) ^{[89] [90]}. Additionally, TMC added Michael Hess (an energy sector veteran) and Alex Spiro (a well-known attorney) to its Board ^[91]. Hess and Spiro are expected to help navigate U.S. regulatory and legal waters ^[92]. These moves didn’t move the stock immediately, but they shore up the company’s long-term positioning.
• July 2025 – Industry Buzz (Lockheed & ISA): The Financial Times reported that Lockheed Martin (which holds old seabed exploration licenses via a U.S. subsidiary) is in talks to develop its Pacific seabed assets, given renewed interest in undersea mining ^[93]. Lockheed’s COO said there is now “large interest” in its deposits and that the U.S. could set a “gold standard for commercial recovery of nodules” ^[94]. Around the same time, the ISA’s 30th Session meetings in Jamaica (July 2025) concluded without a Mining Code yet again ^[95]. No new timeline was agreed, pushing the next ISA meeting to March 2026 ^[96]. These news items underscore the dynamic backdrop: big players like Lockheed eyeing the space (potential competition or partners for TMC), and continued international delays adding urgency to alternative paths. TMC’s stock didn’t react sharply to the Lockheed news, but it reinforces the narrative that “deep-sea mining is heating up”. If anything, Lockheed’s interest was seen as validating TMC’s vision (the pie is large enough that even Lockheed wants in).
• Legal Win: Another under-the-radar positive development – TMC prevailed in a shareholder lawsuit related to its environmental disclosures. In mid-2025 a U.S. District Judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit that had alleged TMC misled investors about environmental risks and backing ^[97]. The judge ruled that TMC’s comparisons of deep-sea mining to terrestrial mining were not misleading, noting the company had acknowledged uncertainties and potential harm ^[98]. Importantly, the judge wrote: “It is eminently possible that (1) deep-sea mining causes meaningful environmental harm, and yet (2) such harm is significantly less than the harm caused by existing methods.” ^[99]. This legal win not only saves TMC from potential damages, but also amounts to a U.S. court recognizing a key part of TMC’s thesis (that deep-sea mining, while impactful, might be comparatively less harmful than land mining). TMC and others can be expected to cite this as they make their case to regulators and the public.

In sum, recent news has been a mixed bag but generally trending in TMC’s favor: the company is hitting its internal milestones (technical studies, pilot tests, financing) and navigating the geopolitical landscape adeptly (leveraging U.S. support while keeping ISA options open). The stock’s volatility around these events reflects a market trying to price in breakthroughs that are exciting but not definitive. Each positive catalyst (e.g. permit progress) inches TMC closer to its goal, but until actual mining begins, there remains an air of “show me” skepticism.

Investors should keep an eye on upcoming events such as the March 2026 ISA meeting, any further U.S. regulatory actions, and TMC’s own quarterly updates (which should detail progress on permitting and pilot operations). The news flow will likely remain the primary driver of TMC’s stock in the coming year.

The Metals Company’s Business Model & Strategy

TMC’s business model is predicated on being a first-mover in the nascent deep-sea mining industry and supplying critical minerals in a more sustainable way. Let’s break down key elements of its strategy and operations:

• Resource Base: The heart of TMC’s value is its access to vast mineral resources on the seafloor. Through its subsidiaries Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI) and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd (TOML), TMC holds exploration contracts for specific areas in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, granted by the ISA. These areas collectively span thousands of square kilometers and contain billions of tonnes of polymetallic nodules. The NORI-D area alone (the first planned mine site) is estimated to have 356 million tonnes of wet nodules ^[100], containing high grades of Ni, Cu, Co, Mn. Unlike a land deposit, nodules are essentially ready-made ore lying on the seafloor surface – no overburden to remove, no hardrock drilling. TMC’s strategy is to delineate enough reserves and resources to support decades of production, which it has largely done on paper (as seen by the 2025 resource estimates).
• Extraction Method: TMC is pioneering the extraction method in partnership with offshore engineering firms. The system involves: a seabed harvester vehicle (remotely operated, crawls the ocean floor at ~4,000m depth, picking up nodules and separating sediment), a riser pipe connected to a production support vessel that pumps nodules up as a slurry, and surface processing/storage on the vessel. The nodules then would be transferred to bulk carriers and shipped to shore. TMC’s 2022 pilot achieved a continuous lift of nodules to the surface ship, proving the concept ^[101]. The key now is scaling this to a full production system. TMC will likely need multiple collector vehicles and a larger or additional production vessel to reach its target of ~3 million tonnes of dry nodules per year in steady state (which equates to ~10.8 million tonnes wet nodules per year as per the PFS) ^[102]. Allseas is expected to provide at least one full-scale mining vessel (the Hidden Gem) and possibly convert others if needed. The technology risk is not trivial – operating machinery at abyssal depths continuously is challenging. But the components (slurry pumping, ROVs, etc.) leverage known tech from offshore oil & gas and dredging industries. TMC’s competitive edge is partly in having advanced this system further than any competitor so far, via the pilot.
• Processing & Refining: On land, TMC’s plan is to use a combination of pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy to process nodules. One envisioned flowsheet is: smelt nodules into an iron-rich alloy (to concentrate Ni, Cu, Co), then use hydrometallurgical refining (likely leaching) to extract nickel and cobalt sulfate, copper cathode, etc., while manganese can be extracted or left in the alloy for sale to steelmakers ^[103]. Importantly, nodules have no sulfide minerals, meaning no sulfuric acid plant needed and no SO₂ emissions, and they have few toxic elements (like no mercury, low arsenic) – making them relatively “clean” ore. TMC claims it can achieve “near-zero solid waste” because almost everything in a nodule is a useful oxide or metal ^[104]. There are no tailings piles; residual material can be used as construction aggregate or backfill. If these claims hold, the refining process could indeed have a smaller footprint than that of typical nickel laterite or copper mines (which often leave behind tailings and slag). Still, processing nodules at scale has never been done commercially. TMC will need to build or partner in building a processing plant – likely requiring hundreds of millions in capital. This is another hurdle down the road (possibly financed via a JV with a battery metals refinery partner).
• Sales & Marketing: TMC’s prospective “products” include nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate (for lithium-ion battery cathodes), copper cathodes (for wiring/electronics), and manganese silicate or manganese alloy feedstock (for steel production). The target customers are battery cathode manufacturers and stainless steel or alloy steel companies. For example, nickel and cobalt could be sold into the EV battery supply chain – these are high-value products in deficit as EV demand grows. Copper is widely traded; TMC’s copper would just join global supply for electrical uses. Manganese (in the form TMC might produce) would likely go to steel companies. A possible strategy for TMC is to secure offtake agreements with users of these metals – perhaps an automaker or battery company commits to buy X tonnes of nickel/cobalt from TMC at pre-agreed terms, which could also help finance the project. So far, no specific offtake deals have been announced, but Korea Zinc’s involvement is notable: Korea Zinc is a leading metals refiner and is developing precursor cathode materials (pCAM) ^{[105] [106]}. Korea Zinc’s investment suggests they could be a future processing or offtake partner (they have facilities that could process intermediate products from nodules). Additionally, Glencore – a major commodity trader – was an early investor in TMC prior to the SPAC merger; it’s conceivable Glencore might handle trading of some of TMC’s output. Allseas, for its part, is entitled to a portion of nodule production under a profit-sharing arrangement (in return for providing engineering and vessels).
• ESG and Branding: A big part of TMC’s model is differentiation on ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) grounds. The company markets nodules as “lower-environmental-footprint” metals – no child labor (c.f. DRC cobalt), no rainforest removal (c.f. Indonesian nickel laterites), etc. ^{[107] [108]}. It also emphasizes the potential to recycle these metals endlessly (circular economy) once they’re brought into use ^[109]. This narrative is aimed at obtaining a “social license to operate” and appealing to end-users (like EV companies) that are under pressure to clean up their supply chains. In practice, TMC will have to prove these claims with hard data from its lifecycle assessments. It commissioned Benchmark Minerals to do a lifecycle CO₂ analysis, which reportedly showed significant advantages of nodules over land ores ^[110]. By continuing to engage scientists (it has numerous independent researchers involved in its campaigns) and being public with data, TMC is trying to position itself as the responsible pioneer. Whether that convinces skeptics remains to be seen, but it’s integral to their strategy. As part of ESG, TMC has also promised revenue-sharing and benefits to sponsoring states (Nauru, Tonga, Kiribati), projecting millions of dollars and local development projects for these small Pacific nations – critical for maintaining support.
• Regulatory Navigation: Strategically, TMC has hedged its bets by pursuing a “dual-track” permitting approach: the international route via ISA and a domestic U.S. route via NOAA. Initially, TMC’s plan (through NORI with Nauru) was to use Nauru’s trigger of the “two-year rule” to force the ISA to consider an exploitation application by 2023 ^[111]. Indeed, TMC intended to submit an application by Q3 2023 ^[112]. It’s unclear if that application has been officially submitted or is on hold due to ISA’s lack of a Mining Code. Meanwhile, seeing ISA delays, TMC smartly engaged with the U.S. government. The U.S., not a party to UNCLOS, has its own seabed mining law (DSHMRA). NOAA’s recent moves (compliance notice, proposed regulatory revisions) suggest the U.S. is gearing up to permit commercial mining in international waters for U.S. companies ^[113]. TMC is at the forefront here. In July 2025, NOAA even published draft rule revisions that would allow simultaneous granting of exploration and commercial permits – effectively streamlining the process ^[114]. TMC commented that with these signals, the U.S. path to production is “becoming clearer” ^[115]. The company’s strategy is to be ready to mine under whichever regime gives the green light first. If ISA approves an exploitation contract in 2026, great – TMC will operate under UN oversight (paying royalties to ISA and Nauru). If ISA remains bogged down but the U.S. offers a license, TMC could operate under U.S. law (though operating in international waters with just a U.S. permit could raise international legal questions). In any case, regulatory agility is key to TMC’s plan – it has kept options open and engaged both channels.

To sum up, The Metals Company’s business model is high-risk, high-reward and quite unlike a typical mining junior. It isn’t just exploring one deposit and hoping to sell it; it’s attempting to create an entire industry’s supply chain. TMC’s strategy involves simultaneously being a miner, a metallurgy company, a lobbyist, and a sustainability pitchman. The upside is huge if it works (nearly unlimited resources in a metal-hungry world). The execution challenges are equally huge.

So far, in 2025, TMC has shown it can advance the technical and regulatory pieces steadily (successful pilot, securing funds, progressing permits). The next 1-2 years will test its ability to transition from exploration to exploitation mode – essentially, going from concept to construction. Investors will want to watch if TMC can lock in the remaining pieces (final permits, project financing, maybe offtake deals) by 2026 to begin ordering equipment and infrastructure for 2027 production.

SWOT Analysis of The Metals Company (TMC)

Analyzing The Metals Company through a SWOT lens (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) provides a structured view of its investment merits and risks:

Strengths:

• Vast Resource with High Grades: TMC controls the world’s largest estimated undeveloped source of battery metals ^[116]. The polymetallic nodules in its license areas have rich concentrations of Ni, Co, Cu, Mn – all in one ore. The sheer scale (enough metal for hundreds of millions of EVs by TMC’s estimates ^[117]) means if TMC can monetize even a fraction, revenue potential is enormous. The nodules’ grades compare favorably to many land deposits (e.g. ~1.3% nickel, 0.2% cobalt, 1% copper, 30% manganese in nodules ^[118], which is competitive with good nickel sulfide ores on a Ni-equivalent basis).
• First Mover & Technological Lead: TMC is the undisputed leader among deep-sea mining startups ^[119]. It has a multi-year head start in developing harvesting technology and collecting environmental data. The successful pilot in 2022 put it ahead of would-be competitors. This first-mover advantage not only attracts partners (like Allseas, Maersk, Glencore earlier) but also means TMC is helping set industry standards. Any competitor will likely have to follow trails blazed by TMC in engineering and regulation. “TMC is somewhat of a poster child for the industry… very advanced, well funded, with a great team,” noted one industry watcher ^[120].
• Strategic Partnerships and Backers: TMC has aligned itself with strong partners: Allseas (providing offshore engineering and vessels), Korea Zinc (expert in refining and a potential offtaker) ^{[121] [122]}, and it has investment from major commodity players like Glencore (which participated in earlier funding). These partners not only bring cash but also expertise and credibility. Additionally, the involvement of governments (Nauru, Tonga, and tacitly the U.S.) gives TMC clout. For instance, Wedbush’s bullish view cites TMC’s “significant U.S. support” and sees it as a key player in reducing dependency on China ^[123].
• Environmental Narrative (Relative Advantage): Although controversial, TMC’s “metals with lower footprint” narrative is a strength in dealings with stakeholders. The company can point to studies (like its lifecycle analysis and pilot results) suggesting that nodules could supply needed metals with 70% less carbon emissions, 100% less child labor, and dramatically less biodiversity loss than typical mining (claims TMC has made in its impact report). A U.S. Judge even acknowledged the logic that deep-sea mining could cause less harm than current mining ^[124]. This positions TMC to potentially gain support from automakers or policymakers who are caught between the demand for critical minerals and the goal to minimize environmental/social harm. If TMC can indeed prove its operation is “lower impact” in practice, that would be a huge strength and selling point.
• Robust Balance Sheet (near-term): After the mid-2025 fundraises, TMC’s balance sheet is in decent shape for a pre-revenue firm – ~$116M cash, no significant debt ^[125]. Its cash burn (operating cash outflow) in Q2 was about $10.6M ^[126] (excluding one-time items), indicating the cash on hand can cover ~2-3 years of baseline operations. This reduces the short-term financing risk. Moreover, the backing of deep-pocketed allies (Korea Zinc, Allseas, possibly the U.S. government in future) means TMC might secure non-dilutive funding or prepayments for the hefty capex later. For now, at least, bankruptcy risk is off the table in the immediate term.

Weaknesses:

• No Revenue & Unproven Commercial Tech: Fundamentally, TMC is still a pre-revenue venture with an unproven business model. It has not yet demonstrated that it can operate a commercial-scale mining system continuously or profitably. All financial projections (NPVs, IRRs) are based on studies and assumptions, not operating history. The company is burning cash with zero income – a classic weakness that means continued reliance on external funding. Until it actually produces and sells metals, there will be lingering doubts on technical feasibility and cost assumptions.
• Regulatory Dependence and Uncertainty: TMC’s fate is highly dependent on regulators’ decisions, which is a big weakness because it’s outside the company’s full control. The international regulatory vacuum – ISA’s failure (so far) to finalize exploitation rules – means TMC cannot commence mining under the original expected regime yet ^[127]. While the U.S. option exists, that too is uncertain in timeline and could face legal challenges (since mining in international waters without ISA approval might spark international disputes). TMC basically needs legal permission to turn its resource into revenue, and until that’s locked in, the project is in limbo. This binary regulatory hurdle is a glaring weak point – not faced by terrestrial miners who operate under established national laws.
• Significant Cash Burn & Future Funding Needs: Despite current cash, the scale of TMC’s undertaking will require massive capital expenditure to go into full production. The PFS hints at what might be needed: multiple collectors, a processing plant, etc., likely totaling in the hundreds of millions if not over a billion dollars investment. TMC will almost certainly have to raise more capital (debt or equity) in the next 1-2 years to fund procurement of production equipment and onshore facilities. That implies potential share dilution (a weakness for current shareholders) or taking on debt (which for a company with no cash flow is tricky). If market conditions are poor or if environmental opposition scares off investors, TMC could struggle to secure the needed funds on good terms. The August financing at $3/share (when stock was around $4) shows the company had to give a discount and warrants ^[128]; future raises might also be at unfavorable terms if the stock is volatile.
• Public Perception and ESG Skepticism: While TMC touts an environmental advantage, it faces a public relations challenge. Many stakeholders (from NGOs to segments of the public) view deep-sea mining as inherently destructive, dubbing it a threat to the “common heritage of mankind.” TMC’s clash with Greenpeace in 2023 – where activists protested its test mining in the Pacific – garnered negative press ^[129]. The company is sometimes painted as a villain in media, which is a weakness in terms of brand and potentially can influence political decisions. It has to constantly defend its image and justify that it’s not going to “destroy the ocean.” This uphill battle for hearts and minds is costly and not guaranteed to succeed.
• Concentrated Asset/Single Project Risk: TMC’s entire business is essentially tied to one project concept in one geographic zone (CCZ nodules). This lack of diversification is a weakness – if something goes wrong in that zone (say an unforeseen ecological problem or a legal barrier), TMC doesn’t have other independent assets to fall back on. Many mining companies have multiple mines or projects; TMC is all-in on deep-sea nodules. Additionally, nodules are a somewhat uniform product – if battery chemistry shifts away from these metals significantly (e.g. no cobalt batteries, reduced nickel usage, etc.), it could erode the value of TMC’s product basket. The company is leveraged to the continued demand for Ni, Co, Cu, Mn in the EV and steel sectors.

Opportunities:

• Booming Demand for EV and Clean Energy Metals: The macro trend of electrification and renewable energy is a huge opportunity for TMC. EV sales are surging globally, and analysts project a multi-decade supercycle in demand for battery metals like nickel and cobalt. Traditional sources of these metals face challenges (grade declines, geopolitical risks, ESG pressures), so new supplies are desperately needed. If TMC can tap even a portion of its resource, it stands to ride a long wave of high demand and potentially high prices for its metals. The shift by automakers to high-nickel and even high-manganese battery chemistries (as noted by GM and Ford’s plans for manganese-rich batteries by 2028) could play directly into TMC’s hands ^[130]. Polymetallic nodules have all those ingredients in one package, which is very rare geologically. This gives TMC an opportunity to position itself as a one-stop solution for critical minerals supply for the EV industry.
• Supportive Government Policies & Funding: There is a clear opportunity for TMC to benefit from government initiatives in the U.S. and allied countries to secure critical minerals. The U.S. has shown willingness to invest directly in companies (e.g., the Department of Energy’s deals with Lithium Americas, and DOD’s stake in MP Materials) ^{[131] [132]}. If TMC continues to make progress, it could potentially attract U.S. government funding – for example, through the Defense Production Act or Department of Energy loans. In July, Trump’s executive order specifically mentioned encouraging the stockpiling of seabed metals ^[133]. This hints that if TMC produces nodules or intermediate products, the government might be a ready buyer (reducing market risk). Moreover, as countries decouple from Chinese supply chains, TMC could strike partnership deals with governments or companies in Japan, South Korea, or Europe that are seeking alternative sources of critical minerals.
• Potential to Form Joint Ventures or Sell Stake in Projects: TMC could capitalize on its first-mover status by bringing in a major mining or industrial partner at the project level. A big diversified miner (like BHP, Rio Tinto, etc.) might eventually decide they want exposure to deep-sea mining once it’s closer to reality. TMC could negotiate a JV where the partner funds some of the capex in exchange for equity in the project or offtake rights. Similarly, large battery manufacturers or automakers might invest directly in TMC or its project to secure supply (not unlike Tesla’s involvement with nickel mines or GM’s investment in Lithium Americas). These potential deals represent opportunities for TMC to de-risk and fund its development without solely relying on public equity markets.
• Global Need for Diversifying Critical Metals Supply: Geopolitically, the timing is opportune – Western nations are intent on diversifying supply away from conflict zones and China. Cobalt from the deep sea, for instance, could reduce reliance on the Congo (currently ~70% of cobalt comes from DRC). Nickel from international waters could diversify away from Indonesia and Russia. This need creates an opportunity for TMC to position itself as a strategic asset. Already, Lockheed’s renewed interest and statements indicate that big players see deep-sea mining as a strategic play for resource security ^[134]. TMC could license its technology or partner with others (like potentially working with Lockheed’s dormant licenses or others) to expand its footprint. Essentially, being an early entrant, TMC could franchise its know-how to other area license holders in future, creating another revenue stream (this is speculative but possible if it becomes the expert in this field).
• High Margin Potential: If TMC’s cost projections hold true, the company could enjoy very attractive margins. The PFS projected a 43% EBITDA margin at steady state and cash operating costs of just ~$16 per wet tonne of nodules (which translate to a nickel production cost of ~$1,065/ton with credits) ^[135]. That is extremely low-cost nickel – in fact, negative cost if byproduct credits are counted (the Initial Assessment even showed negative cash costs per tonne Ni for the broader resource) ^[136]. This suggests an opportunity for exceptional profitability if/when operations commence. Unlike many mines, nodules require no expensive digging or blasting, and if the system is efficient, a single vessel could collect enormous volume. The opportunity is that TMC might establish itself as a low-cost producer in the market, giving it resilience across commodity price cycles.

Threats:

• Environmental Backlash and Possible Moratorium: The greatest threat to TMC is the powerful environmental opposition to deep-sea mining. Influential NGOs, scientists, and even some governments are lobbying for a moratorium on all seabed mining until more is known about the deep ocean ecosystems ^{[137] [138]}. Over 35 countries (including economic powers like Germany, France, Canada, etc.) have called for a precautionary pause ^[139]. If a political consensus formed to impose a temporary or permanent ban on deep-sea mining, TMC’s project could be frozen or terminated. Even absent an official ban, ongoing activism could delay approvals significantly or impose onerous regulations that make the project uneconomic. For example, if the ISA sets extremely strict environmental standards (say tiny allowable sediment plumes or expensive monitoring requirements), it could undermine feasibility. TMC is working to counter this by presenting data and engaging with stakeholders, but the PR war is far from won. As one publication put it, deep-sea mining threatens sea life “in a way no one is thinking about” (due to the unknowns) ^[140], reflecting the deep unease that could translate to regulatory risk.
• Regulatory/Legal Hurdles: Beyond environmental rejection, TMC faces the risk of bureaucratic paralysis or adverse legal developments. The ISA might continue to drag its feet, effectively stalling TMC’s international permit indefinitely. While the ISA “two-year rule” compels consideration of an application, it doesn’t guarantee approval – the ISA Council could still decide not to grant a contract, or impose additional waits. On the U.S. side, a future administration (post-2025) could reverse the current pro-mining stance. If U.S. politics shift, NOAA could slow-walk permits or environmental groups might sue to stop a U.S.-licensed project (on grounds of international law or insufficient review). There’s also the uncertainty of royalty regimes – the ISA will likely charge royalties on nodule extraction; if set too high, that could threaten economics. In short, the regulatory goalposts could move in unfavorable ways.
• Technical and Operational Risks: Mining at 4-5 km depth is inherently risky and challenging. There could be unforeseen engineering problems when scaling up: for instance, equipment breakdowns in the extreme pressure and corrosive saltwater environment, or pipeline clogging issues, or difficulty in maneuvering the collector on uneven seabeds. Any major technical failure in early operations could cause cost overruns or long delays. Additionally, TMC will have to establish a supply chain for spare parts, trained crew, etc., in a remote ocean setting – akin to running an offshore oil platform but without the decades of experience those industries have. The operational risk is that real-world production might fall short of projections (maybe the collector can’t achieve the hoped-for 300 tonnes per hour, or downtime is higher than expected, etc.). This would hurt the project economics. Since no one has done this at scale, there is a threat of unknown unknowns causing trouble.
• Commodity Price Volatility: While TMC benefits from strong metals prices now, the markets for nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese can be volatile. A significant drop in these commodity prices by the late 2020s (due to say, oversupply, substitutions, or lower demand) would threaten project viability. For example, if by 2030 battery tech reduces use of nickel or eliminates cobalt (some battery chemistries like LFP have no nickel/cobalt), then the revenues from those metals could underwhelm. TMC’s economic studies assume certain price levels (often optimistic). If actual prices come in much lower, the multi-billion NPVs could evaporate. So, market risk is a threat – though perhaps a lesser immediate concern given likely deficits in these metals mid-term.
• Competition & New Alternatives: Although TMC is ahead, it’s not alone in seeking undersea riches. Other entities are waiting in the wings: e.g., Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR) from Belgium is testing its own harvester ^[141]; a Norwegian company Loke Marine acquired UK’s licenses and is well-funded ^[142]; even China and Russia have state-sponsored programs (COMRA for China, and Russia’s Yuzhmorgeologiya) ^{[143] [144]}. If deep-sea mining proves viable, big players could quickly scale up and potentially flood the market or outcompete TMC with larger resources or state backing. There’s also a threat from alternative sources of these metals: for example, land-based mining could increase (new nickel mines in Canada, Australia, etc.), or recycling technologies might improve (reducing primary demand), or even new battery chemistries (like solid-state or sodium-ion batteries) could reduce dependence on metals like cobalt and nickel. Any of these developments could shrink the window of opportunity that TMC currently hopes to fill.

In summary, TMC’s SWOT shows a company with incredible strengths and opportunities, but counterbalanced by very real weaknesses and existential threats. This is not a low-risk enterprise by any means – it’s a moonshot attempt to revolutionize mining. Investors must weigh the potential reward of a successful first mover controlling “the Saudi Arabia of battery metals” vs. the risk of a high-profile failure if obstacles prove insurmountable.

Expert Opinions & Commentary 💬

Throughout 2025, a variety of experts – from stock analysts to industry CEOs to scientists – have weighed in on The Metals Company and deep-sea mining. Here are a few notable pieces of commentary:

• Dan Ives, Wedbush Tech Analyst: “Overall, we believe that TMC is well-positioned to be a key player in the critical metal supply chain due to its first-mover advantage in deep sea mining while also receiving significant U.S. support as it looks to reduce its dependency on China in the global supply of critical [minerals].” ^[145] – (Comment from July 2025 when upgrading TMC to Outperform). Interpretation: Ives highlights the geopolitical strategic angle – TMC could fill a crucial gap for the West’s supply chains. His confidence grew after seeing the Trump administration’s backing, viewing TMC as aligning perfectly with that policy push.
• Gerard Barron, TMC CEO: “The publication of our PFS for the NORI-D Project marks a defining moment for TMC – showing the potential of a clear, capital-efficient path to first production… With strong signals from Washington… the U.S. pathway to production for NORI-D is becoming clearer. Each step reduces risk, sharpens our execution timeline, and strengthens the investment case. We are targeting first production from NORI-D in Q4 2027, unlocking one of the largest and most strategic resources of critical metals in the world.” ^{[146] [147]} (Q2 2025 press release). Interpretation: Barron is understandably bullish, framing TMC’s progress as de-risking the project step by step. He emphasizes the “strategic” nature of the resource – likely to appeal to investors and governments alike. His mention of Washington’s signals suggests TMC is confident the U.S. will pave the way if ISA doesn’t.
• Iceberg Research (Short Seller): “We believe TMC is headed toward the same failure that doomed its predecessor, Nautilus Minerals… TMC’s projections are based on a wildly optimistic preliminary assessment… including expectations of greater EBITDA margins than Microsoft.” ^[148] (May 2025 short report). Interpretation: This harsh critique comes from Iceberg Research, which drew parallels to Nautilus Minerals, a deep-sea mining venture that went bankrupt in 2019. Iceberg essentially accuses TMC of overhyping its economics and underestimating challenges – noting that Nautilus, which had similarly promising resource and tech, couldn’t overcome financing and technical hurdles. The jibe about “margins greater than Microsoft” highlights skepticism about TMC’s profitability claims. This contrarian view is a reminder that not everyone is sold on the TMC story – and short sellers see potential downside if history repeats.
• Judge Eric Komitee (U.S. District Court): “It is eminently possible that (1) deep-sea mining causes meaningful environmental harm, and yet (2) such harm is significantly less than the harm caused by existing methods.” ^[149] (Excerpt from judgment dismissing a lawsuit against TMC). Interpretation: This nuanced statement by a federal judge captures the complex trade-off debate at the heart of TMC’s proposition. Essentially, even if TMC’s operations will damage the deep ocean, they might still be preferable relative to the damage done by more strip mines, rainforests cut for nickel, etc. This perspective somewhat vindicates TMC’s argument that we should compare alternatives, not idealize zero impact. Coming from a legal authority, it gives some credence to TMC’s environmental stance – a quote TMC will likely cite in its advocacy.
• Alex Kisman, Greenpeace (hypothetical): While not a direct quote from our gathered text, it’s worth noting environmental experts often counter that “We’ve barely explored the deep ocean, and companies like TMC want to strip-mine it. This could be catastrophic for marine ecosystems – risking extinctions of unknown species and destruction of carbon sinks for a quick profit.” (Greenpeace and Deep Sea Conservation Coalition have released many statements to this effect). Interpretation: The environmental expert view underscores irreversibility – once mining starts, any damage to these slow-growing deep-sea habitats (some organisms live on nodules themselves) cannot be undone, and we might not even know what we’ve lost. They argue more science is needed and that alternatives (like recycling or sourcing more from land responsibly) should be pursued instead. This viewpoint is driving the push for a moratorium and is a major external opinion impacting TMC’s risk profile.
• Financial Times report on Lockheed Martin: Frank St. John, Lockheed COO, said there was now a “large interest” in the company’s [seabed] deposits from groups involved in undersea mining… “[Lockheed] believe[s] the US has the opportunity to develop a gold standard for commercial recovery of nodules in an environmentally responsible manner.” ^[150]. Interpretation: Here we have a defense industry executive essentially validating TMC’s domain. Lockheed getting involved suggests deep-sea mining is moving from fringe to mainstream (if a company like Lockheed is talking about it, the stakes are high). The quote also signals that major players want to do this the right way (environmentally responsible, a “gold standard”). For TMC, Lockheed’s interest could mean either future competition or even collaboration (Lockheed might license its areas to others since it’s not a mining firm by trade). In any case, expert commentary like this shows the strategic importance nations are assigning to ocean minerals, which bodes well for TMC’s cause if managed well.

Overall, expert commentary on TMC ranges from optimistic (Wall St. bulls, company execs) to deeply skeptical (short sellers, environmental groups). This polarity is typical for a disruptive venture. For investors, it’s crucial to digest both sides: the growth story and strategic rationale versus the execution and ethical challenges.

Financial Performance & Key Metrics 📈

Since its SPAC listing in late 2021, The Metals Company’s financial performance is more about spending money to build the project than traditional revenue metrics. Here we’ll summarize TMC’s financial state and key ratios as of 2025:

• Revenue: $0.00. TMC has no commercial revenues yet (aside from trivial interest income on cash). This will remain the case until it begins selling nodules or refined metals, which is slated for 2027 at the earliest. Investors should not expect any top-line revenue in 2025 or 2026, and thus no price-to-sales ratio is meaningful.
• Earnings:Negative and volatile. TMC reported a net loss of $74.3 million in Q2 2025 ^[151]. For the first half of 2025, losses likely exceeded $100M (Q1 included some one-time charges related to financings, perhaps warrant liabilities as the stock price rose, which can inflate accounting losses). The large Q2 loss was partly due to non-cash accounting items (e.g., the rising share price caused an increase in the estimated fair value of outstanding warrants, which hits the P&L). On an operating basis, Q2 operating loss was ~$22M ^[152], and cash used in operations was ~$10.6M ^[153]. These figures suggest an operating expense run-rate of ~$40M/year, mostly for R&D, environmental studies, payroll, and vessel operations during the pilot. EPS is deeply negative (e.g., Q2 net loss per share was $0.20 ^[154]), but EPS is not very informative now.
• Cash & Liquidity: As of June 30, 2025, TMC had $115.8 million in cash and equivalents ^[155]. This was boosted by the Q2 financings (Korea Zinc $85M and the $35M private placement) ^{[156] [157]}. The company carries minimal debt (none material; it may have some lease obligations, but no traditional bank debt). With ~$10M quarterly cash burn (which could increase if development accelerates), the cash is expected to last into late 2026 or early 2027 before needing replenishment ^[158]. This assumes no major capex spend yet – once they move to build mining systems, capex will surge and likely require project financing.
• Market Capitalization: Around $2.6–2.9 billion as of Oct 2025 (fluctuating with share price) ^[159]. Notably, this is up from just ~$613 million at end of 2024 ^[160] – a reflection of the 2025 stock price jump. For context, at ~$2.6B market cap, TMC is valued higher than many junior mining companies with proven reserves, indicating the market’s pricing of its unique potential (and/or speculative froth).
• Enterprise Value (EV): Roughly ~$2.5B (since no debt, EV ≈ Market cap minus cash). With EV in the billions and zero revenue, TMC’s valuation is entirely based on future expectations. EV/Resource could be considered: TMC has ~1.5 billion tonnes of nodules in resource; at $2.5B EV that’s ~$1.67 per tonne of wet nodules in the ground (or rather, in the ocean). Considering each tonne of wet nodules might contain ~$500+ worth of metals at current prices, the EV/resource metric might actually seem modest – but that’s because extraction cost and risk are huge. It shows the market assigning a small percentage of the in-situ value to TMC currently (which is normal in early-stage mining valuations).
• Price-to-Book (P/B): As a SPAC-merged entity, TMC’s book equity is somewhat inflated by intangible asset accounting. At mid-2025, book equity would include the cash plus capitalized exploration costs. The market cap (~$2.6B) likely far exceeds book equity, leading to a P/B ratio well above 1 (indicatively, end of 2024 book equity was around $250M, so P/B could be ~10x or more after the stock rise). This isn’t alarming for a pre-revenue growth company, but it highlights that investors are paying a premium not for assets-on-books, but for assets-in-ocean and future NPV.
• Ownership: Insiders and strategic holders own a significant chunk. For instance, insiders (founders, management) and Allseas had a large stake post-SPAC, and now Korea Zinc holds ~5% ^[161]. According to some filings, insiders (including Gerard Barron and board) collectively owned ~45% at one point ^[162] – though that may have changed after new issuance. The relatively concentrated ownership could mean aligned interests, but also means the float is somewhat reduced (volatility can be higher if float is small). No large institutional revenue from operations means the stock’s movements are mostly driven by news and retail/speculative activity rather than earnings.
• Analyst Estimates: As mentioned, the few analysts covering TMC forecast continued losses for the next couple of years. For example, H.C. Wainwright initiated coverage with a Buy and likely laid out a model where TMC might start generating revenue ~2027 and ramp up thereafter ^[163]. While exact figures aren’t public, one can guess that they project multi-billion annual revenue once at full production (10+ million tonnes nodules/year could yield ~$1-2B in metals per year at today’s prices). But any such estimates are highly speculative at this stage.
• Stock Price Volatility & Beta: TMC’s beta is relatively low (~0.2) per some sources ^[164] – this might be a quirk of calculation given its early trading history, or because in 2022-2023 it traded more like an idiosyncratic penny stock not correlated with the market. However, in practical terms, TMC’s stock is highly volatile in absolute terms (50-100% swings in a month have occurred). It does not closely follow broader indices or even commodity prices on a short-term basis; it trades on unique news. Investors should be prepared for this volatility. Stop-loss orders or position sizing might be prudent risk management given the wild moves.
• Short Interest: TMC did attract some short sellers (like Iceberg Research’s public short call). After the stock’s big run-up, it’s likely that short interest increased. A high short interest can create additional volatility (short squeezes or sharp drops if negative news hits). One should check the latest short interest percentage (for example, in mid-2025 some reports said TMC was on lists of stocks with large borrow fee increases ^[165]). If short interest is high (say >10% of float), any sudden positive news could trigger a squeeze, whereas sustained lack of progress could see shorts pressing their bet.

Bottom line: Traditional financial metrics for TMC are mostly not meaningful yet – it’s all about prospective value. The company’s financial health should be monitored via its cash burn, cash balance, and funding plans rather than revenue or EPS. In the near term, solvency is secure due to recent capital raises. The main financial question is how TMC will fund the transition from exploration to commercial production. This might involve project finance debt, more equity, strategic investments, or a combination.

One can think of TMC’s situation like a biotech in Phase 3 trials – burning cash, no revenue, but one huge asset (a drug or, in TMC’s case, a resource) that if approved could yield massive revenue. The risk for dilution is real: existing shareholders could be diluted if the company issues a lot more shares to raise construction capital. On the other hand, if they manage non-dilutive funding (e.g. government grants or a major partner footing capex in exchange for offtake), the financial upside to current equity holders would be higher.

Key Ratios Snapshot (Oct 2025):

(Note: Short interest estimate is illustrative; check latest NASDAQ data for current figures.)

This snapshot underscores that TMC’s valuation is entirely forward-looking. Traditional investors might balk at such a high market cap for a company years from revenue, but growth and speculative investors are valuing the option value of TMC’s resource.

In evaluating financial performance, one should track: capital expenditures (as pilot systems are built), R&D expense (environmental and engineering work), and general & administrative expense (which includes everything from staff to legal to PR given the advocacy needed). Unusually, a lot of TMC’s spending is on environmental studies and engaging regulators – a necessary cost of creating a new industry.

As we move into 2026, expect TMC’s financial story to revolve around project financing. If TMC announces a financing package (say a debt facility or a strategic investment of several hundred million), that will be a key financial milestone. Conversely, if cash starts to dwindle without such arrangements, the risk of stock dilution through equity raises will rise, which could pressure the share price.

Peer Comparison: TMC vs. Similar Stocks 🔎

The Metals Company is in a unique niche (deep-sea mining), but investors may compare it with other companies involved in battery metals and critical minerals. Here’s how TMC stacks up against a couple of peers in related industries:

Sources: Yahoo Finance, company filings, news reports ^{[178] [179] [180] [181]}.

Comparative Highlights:

• Industry Position: TMC is to deep-sea battery metals what MP Materials is to rare earth magnets and what Lithium Americas is to lithium – each is critical for the EV supply chain but focuses on different materials. MP and LAC are land-based projects; TMC is the only one trying to source from the ocean. All three benefit from the global push for electrification and have seen stock surges in 2025 due to investor enthusiasm and policy support.
• Operational Status: MP Materials is the most established – it produces rare earth concentrate from its Mountain Pass mine and is building a U.S. processing facility (MP even has revenue of ~$200M/year and a U.S. Department of Defense stake) ^[182]. Lithium Americas is in late-stage development – its Argentina lithium brine project started commissioning in 2023-24, and its flagship U.S. lithium clay project got final permits and funding (including GM and DOE investment) ^[183]. TMC is the furthest from production (still some 2 years behind LAC, which expects first U.S. lithium in 2026, and MP which is already producing). Thus, TMC’s risk is higher in terms of unproven operations.
• Market Valuation: Interestingly, TMC at ~$2.6B is valued higher than Lithium Americas (around $4B pre-government stake rumor, then spiked; currently perhaps similar to or a bit above TMC) and about one-fifth of MP’s valuation. MP’s ~$12B cap reflects it being the only game in town for U.S. rare earths, with actual revenue (though it trades at a very high multiple because it’s investing for growth). TMC’s valuation relative to LAC’s suggests the market sees their prospects as somewhat comparable, even though LAC is closer to cash flow. This could imply TMC is expensive relative to peers on a timeline basis, or conversely that if TMC clears permitting, it could warrant an even higher value given its resource size (for perspective, if TMC were producing $1B/year in EBITDA in the 2030s as its studies suggest possible, a $2.6B market cap might end up looking cheap).
• Funding & Partnerships: All three have strategic partners: TMC (Allseas, Korea Zinc), MP (Shenghe Resources from China historically; recently the U.S. DoD and factory partnerships), LAC (General Motors invested $650M; DOE loan). The trend is governments or industry players stepping in to back these critical minerals projects. TMC’s partnership profile is arguably still forming – it wouldn’t be surprising to see an automaker or another big company team up with TMC if it progresses (just as Tesla has teamed with nickel developers and GM with LAC). This peer context shows that being a critical mineral supplier in a friendly jurisdiction carries a premium and support.
• Risk Profile: Among these, MP is lowest risk (already mining, just expanding downstream processing; profitable operations albeit relying on one buyer currently, China). LAC is medium risk (construction risk, but lithium demand is very strong and partially derisked by big investments and off-takes). TMC is highest risk (new technology, new regulatory regime, no revenue). On the flip side, TMC’s potential reward (if successful) could be the highest because the resource is so large and it would open an entire new frontier. It’s also somewhat less “crowded” – there are dozens of lithium developers and several rare earth projects, but only a couple serious deep-sea mining contenders.
• Stock Performance Drivers: In 2025, all three stocks soared on policy news: TMC on Trump’s EO and NOAA moves ^[184], MP on the Pentagon stake and magnet supply chain push (MP was one of Q3’s top gainers, +100%+ YTD) ^[185], and LAC on U.S. government equity/loan deals (LAC jumped ~74% in one day on the 10% stake rumor ^[186]). This underlines that for critical mineral stocks, government actions are key catalysts. TMC fits right into this theme – its fortune may similarly rise or fall on how governments act.
• Investor Base: TMC’s investor base currently includes a lot of retail/speculative interest (e.g. high mentions on forums during spikes), whereas MP Materials has more institutional ownership (BlackRock, Vanguard, etc.) since it’s an NYSE mid-cap and has earnings. Lithium Americas also has substantial institutional holding and index inclusion. As TMC matures (if it does), one would expect more institutional investors to come in, especially if it transitions from story to reality. That could stabilize the stock in the long run – but for now, TMC is more sentiment-driven relative to those peers.
• Comparison with Nautilus Minerals: A special note – while not in the above table (since Nautilus is defunct), many compare TMC to Nautilus Minerals. Nautilus was a pioneer in seafloor massive sulfide (underwater copper-gold mining) off Papua New Guinea. It failed around 2019 after technical delays and funding shortfalls, leaving creditors and the Papua New Guinea government in the lurch. TMC’s CEO was an early investor in Nautilus ^[187], and the ghost of Nautilus is often cited as a cautionary tale for TMC. The big differences: Nautilus aimed at much more complex sulfide mining (undersea rock cutting at hydrothermal vents) and had less government backing. TMC’s nodules are arguably simpler to collect, and TMC has been more savvy in aligning with multiple governments. Nonetheless, the failure of Nautilus is a sobering peer comparison that TMC must consciously avoid repeating by not over-promising and by securing adequate financing.

In conclusion, compared to similar stocks, TMC offers a unique exposure – it’s the only way to invest in deep-sea mining on U.S. markets. It has outperformed many peers in 2025 due to its speculative appeal. But it also carries a higher risk profile. Investors might consider diversifying across the critical minerals space – for instance, pairing a high-risk bet like TMC with more established players like an MP (rare earth producer) or an Albemarle (major lithium producer) to balance risk. It’s also interesting that some ETFs or funds may start including companies like TMC if they focus on clean tech metals. For now, TMC remains a niche pick with a story that sets it apart from land-based mining peers.

Deep-Sea Mining and EV Metals: Industry Outlook 🌐

The broader industry context surrounding The Metals Company is crucial to understanding its prospects. TMC’s fate is intertwined with the outlook for deep-sea mining as a whole, as well as the supply-demand dynamics of critical minerals for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy.

Outlook for Deep-Sea Mining: The concept of mining the ocean floor for minerals has been around for decades (interest peaked in the 1970s, then faded, now resurging). As of 2025, we are at a pivotal juncture: will deep-sea mining go mainstream or not? On one hand, the need for minerals is pushing companies and some governments to seriously consider it. On the other hand, environmental and legal challenges are significant.

• The International Seabed Authority (ISA) has issued around 30 exploration licenses (to various nations’ sponsored entities, including TMC’s) ^[188]. However, it has not yet agreed on commercial mining regulations. After missing self-imposed deadlines in 2020 and 2023, the ISA as of July 2025 had no new timeline for a Mining Code ^[189]. This regulatory limbo creates uncertainty. The next ISA session in March 2026 will be closely watched. If the ISA were to approve a code and even approve TMC’s (or others’) exploitation applications, it would officially launch a new industry. Many expect at least some pilot mining contracts by 2026-2027, given the pressure from countries like Nauru (sponsor of TMC) and investors.
• However, as noted, opposition is strong. A growing coalition of countries (mostly those without direct stakes in mining and with strong environmental lobbies, like several EU states, Pacific islands, etc.) is advocating for at least a temporary moratorium on deep-sea mining until more science is done ^{[190] [191]}. Influential global NGOs (WWF, Greenpeace, etc.) are campaigning hard on this front, raising public awareness. At the ISA meetings, this makes consensus difficult. If a stalemate continues, it’s possible that no mining code is agreed for years, which would mean no ISA-sanctioned mining.
• Alternate paths: Because of ISA delays, countries are exploring alternatives. The U.S. path we discussed is one – the Trump admin’s April 2025 executive order basically says the U.S. will not wait for the ISA and will move forward under its own law ^{[192] [193]}. This unilateral approach is controversial internationally (China’s foreign ministry said the U.S. move “violates international law” ^[194]). We could see a split where a group of countries (U.S., maybe partners like UK, Japan, etc.) proceed outside ISA, while others refuse to recognize such mining. This could lead to geopolitical friction and even legal disputes in international courts. For TMC, this broadens possible avenues but also means the regulatory environment could be fragmented. The Financial Times called the U.S. move the most assertive step yet, raising fears ISA might lose legitimacy ^[195].
• Technological readiness: Industry-wide, the tech is nearly there. TMC and GSR have done pilot nodule collections; companies like Canada’s Impossible Metals are even working on AI-powered “pickers” to collect nodules one by one (to be more selective) ^[196]. For seafloor massive sulfides, Japan performed a successful pilot mining of vents in its waters in 2017; India and China have tested technologies too. The outlook is that technologically, commercial systems could be operational before 2030. Transocean’s involvement (largest offshore driller now interested in mining systems) and TechnipFMC’s backing of Loke Marine show heavy industry pivoting to enable this ^{[197] [198]}. This means if the political green light is given, multiple projects could rev up quite quickly using oil & gas know-how. That poses both competition for TMC and validation of concept.
• Environmental management: A key part of industry outlook is whether companies can prove they can mitigate harm. Over the next 1-2 years, results from ongoing studies will trickle in. For example, TMC’s monitoring of its 2022 test, as well as an independent EU-sponsored study (MiningImpact project) that was present during TMC’s test, will yield scientific papers. Additionally, other test mining (like India’s trial in 2024 in the Indian Ocean, or a Japan/South Korea trial) might happen, providing data. If these show manageable impacts (e.g. plumes don’t travel far, biodiversity impacts localized), it will bolster industry prospects. If they reveal more dire consequences (e.g. significant mortality or ecosystem function disruption over large areas), it could lead to stricter rules or bans. So the scientific findings in 2025-2026 are pivotal to the industry’s social license.

Critical Minerals & EV Materials Outlook: The other side of the coin is demand. The 2020s are experiencing an unprecedented surge in demand for battery materials due to the global energy transition:

• Electric Vehicles: EV sales are expected to grow from ~10 million in 2022 to 40-50 million by 2030 (some projections even higher). Each EV battery (for a long-range vehicle) contains around 6-12 kg of cobalt (if NMC chemistry), 30+ kg of nickel (in NMC batteries), 50+ kg of copper (wiring and motors), plus manganese in cathodes (for NMC or LMNO chemistries). This is creating upward pressure on these metal markets. Nickel, for instance, saw LME prices spike above $50k/ton in 2022 on supply fears (though pulled back as Indonesia ramped output). Cobalt prices fluctuate with DRC news. Copper is near historically high levels ($4/lb range) driven by not just EVs but grid and renewable build-out. The outlook is generally bullish on volume – even if each battery uses slightly less of certain metals (due to tech improvements), the sheer volume of batteries means total demand for Ni, Co, Cu will likely double or more by 2030. Even manganese, often overlooked, is rising in importance as companies look to high-manganese cathodes to reduce cobalt use (which ironically increases manganese use).
• Supply Shortfalls: Traditional mining faces challenges ramping up to meet this demand. New nickel sulfide discoveries are rare; more supply is coming from laterites (Indonesia, Philippines) which are environmentally damaging and require energy-intensive processing. Cobalt is almost entirely a byproduct of copper and nickel mining in the Congo and elsewhere – not easy to quickly scale, and fraught with ESG issues. Copper mines have long lead times and declining ore grades worldwide. In summary, many analysts forecast structural deficits in these metals in the late 2020s unless new sources come online. This is exactly the narrative deep-sea mining companies push: “We have a new source, just let us tap it.” If shortages manifest as expected, industry and governments may become more willing to give the nod to novel sources like nodules, viewing it as the lesser evil compared to supply crunches that could slow the energy transition.
• Alternative Technologies: The industry outlook also depends on whether alternative solutions reduce the need for deep-sea mining. These alternatives include: battery recycling (recover metals from end-of-life batteries), substitution (e.g. moving to LFP batteries that use no nickel or cobalt), and new mineral discoveries on land (like novel sources of nickel such as laterite HPAL projects or deep nickel-rich shales, etc.). By 2025, recycling is ramping up but will only supply a small fraction of needs until many EVs reach end-of-life in 10-15 years. LFP chemistry has gained traction in standard-range vehicles (especially in China), reducing cobalt demand, but high-performance vehicles still prefer nickel-rich chemistries for energy density, and the next-gen chemistries like LMR (Lithium Manganese Rich) still require lots of manganese (and some nickel). So, it’s likely cobalt demand growth might slow if LFP captures market share, but nickel and manganese demand will still be very strong; copper demand is virtually guaranteed with all the electrification (regardless of battery type, you need copper wiring and motors). Thus, TMC’s metals basket remains highly relevant in most EV scenarios.
• Pricing Environment: For an emerging miner like TMC, a supportive pricing environment around first production is critical. Current medium-term forecasts for 2027-2030 often predict high prices: Nickel potentially staying in the $20k-30k/ton range (especially if Indonesia’s export quotas or an OPEC-like cartel for nickel forms), Cobalt possibly in the $50k-70k/ton range if supply struggles, Copper arguably could hit record highs ($5-6+/lb) due to underinvestment in new mines, etc. If TMC enters production in a bull market for metals, its financial metrics could instantly look very attractive, helping justify the project. Conversely, if say there’s an economic downturn or oversupply in one metal by 2027 (for instance, if Indonesia floods the nickel market or if cobalt gets thrifting tech reducing use), that could tighten margins. Diversification of four metals provides some hedge – if one metal underperforms, the others might outperform (e.g., if cobalt is in oversupply but copper is extremely high, it balances out).
• Geopolitics and Trade: Another facet – China currently dominates processing of these minerals (Nickel, Cobalt refining, etc.). The West is pouring billions into building domestic supply chains (e.g., U.S. Inflation Reduction Act incentives for sourcing non-Chinese minerals). Deep-sea nodules, if processed domestically, fit well because they are not extracted from any country (the ISA regime would make them an internationally shared resource, but if the U.S. does it unilaterally, they’d be considered American-sourced perhaps). There’s a big opportunity for countries like the U.S. to secure supply from “neutral” zones to reduce China’s chokehold. This strategic necessity might override some environmental hesitations. One could foresee, for example, the U.S. or Quad countries (U.S., Japan, Australia, India) collaborating on deep-sea mining to supply themselves rather than relying on China or Congo.
• Timeline Alignment: The broader outlook for deep-sea mining seems to align with TMC’s timeline. The late 2020s appear to be when deep-sea mining could commence (TMC targeting 2027, others likely around 2027-2030). By that time, the gap between metal demand and supply could be acute. It’s a bit of a race: will deep-sea mining be ready in time to alleviate shortages? If yes, the industry could take off rapidly. If no (due to regulatory halts), then countries might double-down on alternative sources or suffer shortages. For investors, if they believe the metal supercycle narrative and that deep-sea mining will ultimately be allowed to proceed (with careful conditions), then the late 2020s could see these companies become very valuable.

In summary, the industry context is cautiously favorable for TMC: Demand tailwinds are strong and getting stronger, and there’s significant momentum among certain governments and companies to pioneer deep-sea mining. The main headwinds are regulatory delays and environmental opposition, which are real and could derail or delay the whole sector.

The next few years will likely determine whether deep-sea mining becomes a viable part of the world’s mineral supply. If it does, TMC is positioned to be one of, if not the, leader in that space (with all the first-mover perks and learning curve benefits). If it doesn’t, TMC’s story could end like Nautilus – a cautionary tale of overreach. The stakes for the industry are high, both economically and environmentally. Investors in TMC should keep a close watch on global developments: ISA rulings, national policies (like the U.S. executive orders or EU stances), as well as how quickly EV/battery companies start to sweat about raw material shortages. Those will all be signals of where this ship is heading.

Risks and Opportunities for Investors 🎯

To wrap up, what are the key risks and potential rewards for someone considering an investment in The Metals Company at this point (October 2025)? It’s worth synthesizing the earlier sections into the main pros and cons specifically from an investor’s perspective:

Investment Opportunities / Bull Case:

• Enormous Upside if Successful: TMC offers a unique high-upside bet on a new source of critical minerals. If the company achieves commercial production by 2027-2028 as planned, it could generate hundreds of millions in annual EBITDA (the PFS indicates ~$2B EBITDA per year at steady state for full-scale operations ^[199]). For context, a company with $2B EBITDA might command a market value in the tens of billions depending on multiples, far above TMC’s current ~$2.6B. In a blue-sky scenario, early shareholders could see multi-bagger returns by 2030. Essentially, TMC is somewhat akin to owning a call option on a $20 trillion resource ^[200] – even a small realization of that value could be huge for equity holders.
• First-Mover in a Strategic Industry: If deep-sea mining gets going, TMC is very well placed to capture a significant share of the “first wave” of projects. It could secure the best partner deals, best customers, and best talent, and potentially expand into other license areas or minerals (TMC’s CEO has hinted they could look at crusts or other resources in time). Being first also means TMC can help shape regulations in a favorable way. Investors bullish on the long-term necessity of deep-sea mining (to feed the EV revolution) might view TMC as a must-have position, the way one would view a company that pioneered a new technology ahead of others.
• Strong Tailwinds from EV and Policy: As detailed, macro trends in EV adoption and geopolitical strategy are aligning in TMC’s favor. The more the West emphasizes “critical mineral independence”, the more likely TMC will find support (financial, political). Already we see unprecedented steps like the U.S. government directly investing in mining companies (MP, LAC) and writing executive orders to expedite projects like TMC ^[201]. Investors effectively have governments working for them in this case, trying to de-risk and facilitate the business. Such tailwinds could propel the stock higher if, for example, a news hits that “U.S. Department of Energy signs MOU to potentially buy X tons of nodules per year from TMC once produced” – that kind of headline is not outlandish given what’s happened with other companies.
• Potential M&A or Buyout: If TMC continues to prove itself, it could become an acquisition target. Large mining companies that initially sat on the sidelines might decide it’s easier to buy TMC than to build their own deep-sea division from scratch. For instance, one could imagine a scenario where a BHP or a Rio Tinto (both of which have expressed interest in sustainable mining solutions) might make a strategic investment or outright bid if TMC’s project is permitted. Likewise, an oil & gas major transitioning to “energy supply” might see deep-sea mining as an adjacent opportunity (they have offshore expertise). For investors, any hint of such interest could significantly boost the stock (takeover speculation). Already we saw some moves: e.g., Lockheed flirting with the idea of undersea mining signals the big boys are circling ^{[202] [203]}.
• Portfolio Diversification in Critical Minerals: TMC provides exposure to four key metals in one stock. For an investor looking to invest in the EV raw materials theme, TMC offers a “bundle”: nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese. Acquiring exposure to all four individually would mean buying multiple different mining stocks or metal ETFs. With TMC, if it works, you get a slice of each market. This diversification of metal revenue could potentially smooth out volatility in commodity cycles (one metal’s price up, another down, etc.). Thus, some might see TMC as a unique way to play the overall electrification commodity boom, with a single equity.

Investment Risks / Bear Case:

• Binary Outcome Risk: TMC is largely a binary bet – either it eventually mines nodules and generates massive cash flows, or it fails to get there and the stock could implode. There is a very real possibility of a total loss of investment if the project gets derailed. For example, if a moratorium is implemented and no mining is allowed for a decade, TMC’s value would evaporate (its licenses have renewal periods, investor patience would run out). The company doesn’t have other lines of business to fall back on. So investors must be comfortable with a high-risk, speculative position.
• Execution Delays and Dilution: Even if one believes TMC will eventually succeed, the timeline could be much longer than expected. Any delays in permitting (very possible) or technical hurdles could push first revenue from 2027 to 2030 or beyond. The longer it takes, the more money TMC will burn and likely the more shares it will need to issue to stay afloat. Dilution is a near-certainty – the only question is how much. If the company issues, say, another 100 million shares over the next few years to raise capital, current shareholders’ stake will be diluted. If the stock price is high while issuing, that’s manageable; if the stock slumps and they have to issue at low prices, it’s painful. Many junior miners struggle with this (shares outstanding ballooning over time). TMC already has ~380 million shares after the SPAC and issuances; that could climb. Investors face the risk that by the time the company makes money, their slice of the pie is smaller.
• Regulatory Shut-down or Restrictions: The worst-case regulatory scenario is an outright ban or indefinite pause on deep-sea mining. But even short of that, there could be onerous restrictions: for example, the ISA could approve mining but require such slow production rates or expensive monitoring that it kills profitability. Or lawsuits (perhaps by environmental groups or even fishing interests) could tie up operations in court. For instance, one can imagine lawsuits under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if NOAA grants a permit – litigants might argue the Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate, causing delays. These legal battles could drag on for years, during which TMC might run out of cash. This risk is hard to quantify but very real.
• Commodity Price and Market Adoption Risks: While demand is likely robust, there’s always the chance that by the late 2020s, markets have adjusted in other ways – e.g., if battery tech shifts to chemistries not using TMC’s metals (in a highly optimistic scenario for LFP or sodium-ion, for example). If so, TMC could find that it finally produces nodules but the metals are less needed and prices are lower than expected. Additionally, if many deep-sea projects all come online around the same time (say TMC, plus countries like China starting mining, etc.), they could collectively flood the market and depress prices of nickel/cobalt (a classic resource oversupply boom/bust). Commodities are cyclical; catching a down cycle at start of production would hurt. Investors must accept that even if TMC technically succeeds, market forces might spoil the party.
• Environmental Accidents or Liabilities: If TMC does get to operations, any major environmental incident – e.g., an unexpected mass kill of marine life, an oil-spill-like event (like a pipe rupture causing pollution), or even just alarming scientific findings (like mining causing significant decrease in ocean oxygen or something dire) – could not only halt TMC but damage the entire industry’s reputation. TMC could face liability or be forced to halt and retrofit equipment, etc. Mining is never without accident risk, and doing it in the deep ocean adds complexity (though nodules are not toxic per se, but one could imagine vessel fuel spills or equipment loss). An accident would tank the stock and create huge setbacks.
• Liquidity and Market Volatility: On a more mundane note, TMC’s stock is quite volatile and not extremely liquid for large trades (not as liquid as, say, a large-cap). This means an investor could suffer from wide bid-ask spreads or sharp moves on any given day. It’s not a “widows and orphans” stock – one should use limit orders and be prepared for potentially sudden drops (the stock fell ~50% in a matter of days in past on news). The psychological risk is real: can you hold on through gut-wrenching volatility? Not everyone can, and selling at the wrong time could lock in losses.

Risk Mitigation Thoughts: For those interested in TMC but aware of the risks, some strategies could be:

• Position Sizing: Only allocate a small portion of a portfolio to TMC – an amount one can afford to lose without jeopardizing financial goals. Think of it as a venture-capital style bet.
• Long-Term Horizon: Be prepared to hold for many years. If one believes in the mission, short-term swings shouldn’t deter, but that means tying up capital possibly for a long time.
• Monitoring Milestones: Keep track of key milestones (ISA decisions, NOAA permit, any pilot mining results, financing events). If certain milestones fail to materialize, it might be a signal to reassess.
• Consider Options: If available, sometimes using call options (long-dated LEAPs) can cap the downside to the premium paid while keeping upside exposure. The option market for TMC may not be very liquid, though.

In conclusion, investing in The Metals Company is high-risk, high-reward. The bull case envisions TMC as a cornerstone supplier of critical metals in the green revolution, delivering outsized returns. The bear case sees it as an overhyped venture that could stumble on either politics or practicalities, possibly ending in bankruptcy or perpetual dormancy.

Prudent investors will weigh these outcomes. It may not be an “all or nothing” – perhaps TMC finds a partial path (e.g., starts smaller-scale production under heavy monitoring, etc.). But even that partial success could warrant current valuations or more.

Given the current information (as of Oct 2025), the stock’s strong performance YTD indicates many are betting on the positive scenario. Yet, as objective analysts, we must note that much of TMC’s valuation is speculative; real revenues are still at least two years away, and a lot can change in the interim.

Investors should only consider TMC if they have a high risk tolerance and are interested in the speculative growth category. It’s not a traditional mining stock with steady cash flows – it’s more akin to a pre-revenue tech startup, but in mining.

Conclusion

The Metals Company represents a bold bet on the future of mining – shifting from land to the deep ocean to obtain the raw materials of the 21st-century economy. In 2025, the stock has captured the imagination of markets with its dramatic ascent, reflecting both excitement about its promise and speculation fueled by favorable news. TMC’s polymetallic nodule venture could either revolutionize sustainable metal supply for EVs or underscore the limits society places on resource extraction.

At this juncture (Q4 2025), TMC offers a compelling story: a company sitting on an immense “treasure chest” of EV metals, with a viable (if challenging) plan to retrieve it, backed by some powerful allies, riding a wave of demand. Its stock performance has rewarded early believers, but also introduced significant volatility and risk.

For investors, the key is to stay informed and nimble:

• Watch the regulatory developments (ISA, NOAA) like a hawk – these will likely make or break the investment.
• Keep an eye on how TMC manages its cash and whether it brings new partners on board – that will tell you how well it can navigate the expensive road to production.
• Track the sentiment in broader markets about deep-sea mining – are more people warming up to it, or is opposition growing? That social license factor could hit the stock suddenly if, say, a major country enacts a ban or a major fund announces it won’t invest in deep-sea mining on ESG grounds.
• And don’t forget the metal prices – they remain the fundamental driver of long-term profitability; TMC is levered to the “green metals” narrative, which for now is bullish.

In summary, The Metals Company is a high-stakes play. It sits at the intersection of some of the most critical themes of our time: climate change and the electrification of everything, the quest for sustainability, and even geopolitical competition. This small company in Vancouver could, in a few years, be harvesting the bottom of the Pacific to power millions of Teslas – or it could be a footnote in the history of mining.

Investors must weigh their conviction in TMC’s vision against their tolerance for uncertainty. As of October 2025, the pieces are falling into place for TMC, but the puzzle is not finished yet.

For those who believe in the “deep-sea treasure” narrative, TMC offers a chance to get in early on what could be a transformative new industry. For those who see “fool’s gold” in these rocks, the current lofty valuation and unresolved risks may be a sign to stay away.

Either way, The Metals Company will be a fascinating story to watch as it navigates uncharted waters – literally and figuratively – in the months and years ahead.

Disclosure: This analysis is for informational purposes and reflects the situation as of October 2025. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consider their risk appetite. The author has no position in TMC at the time of writing.

Sources: Key information and quotes in this report were cited from credible sources including company press releases, financial filings, news articles (Yahoo Finance, Motley Fool, Financial Times, OilPrice.com), market data providers, and industry reports ^{[204] [205] [206] [207] [208]}, among others, to ensure accuracy and currency of the analysis.

Key Facts & Figures 📊

• 2025 Stock Surge: TMC stock has skyrocketed over 400% year-to-date, recently trading around $7+ (market cap ~$2.6 billion) ^{[209] [210]}. Shares are up ~450% in the past 52 weeks amid investor excitement over deep-sea minerals and EV demand.
• No Revenue (Yet), Big Losses: The Metals Company is pre-revenue and reported a Q2 2025 net loss of $74.3 million ^[211]. It held $115.8 million cash as of June 30, 2025 ^[212], providing runway into 2027 ^[213], but ongoing losses mean additional funding may be needed before production.
• Strategic Backing: In 2025 TMC secured major funding from industry partners – Korea Zinc invested $85.2M for ~5% stake (at $4.34/share) ^[214] – and a $37M financing led by Allseas and other investors at $3.00/share ^[215]. This fresh capital injection gives TMC at least 2 years of operating cash ^[216] while it navigates development and permitting.
• First Production by 2027? TMC aims to start commercial deep-sea mining in Q4 2027 if permits are secured ^[217]. It holds rights to a massive polymetallic nodule resource in the Pacific CCZ with an estimated $23.6 billion NPV (net present value) across its project areas ^{[218] [219]}. A 2025 study declared the world’s first deep-sea mineral reserves (51 Mt probable nodules) for its NORI-D project ^[220].
• Analyst Outlook: Wall Street is divided – consensus rating is “Hold” (5 analysts: 3 Buy, 1 Hold, 1 Sell) ^[221]. The average 12-mo price target is ~$7.33 (essentially flat vs. current price) with a high of $11 and low of $3.75 ^[222]. Notably, Wedbush recently upgraded TMC to Outperform with an $11 target, citing first-mover advantage and U.S. support – over 100% upside from mid-2025 levels ^{[223] [224]}.
• Recent Developments: TMC’s stock spiked in mid-2025 after an $85M Korea Zinc deal and U.S. regulatory progress (NOAA confirmed TMC’s licenses in compliance) ^[225]. Shares then pulled back ~35% from late-July highs after TMC’s large Q2 loss reminder ^[226]. The company also published positive pilot mining results (sediment plume impacts lower than feared) and declared its first reserves, strengthening its case for commercialization.
• Key Risks:Regulatory uncertainty looms large – the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA) has delayed global mining rules again (no Mining Code agreed in 2025) ^[227], while many countries (37 at last count) advocate a moratorium on deep-sea mining due to environmental concerns ^{[228] [229]}. Environmental opposition from NGOs is intense, warning of “irreversible biodiversity loss” if seabed mining proceeds ^[230]. TMC’s path to revenue also depends on successfully scaling unproven tech and obtaining permits under either an international or U.S. regime – all while managing cash burn and potential dilution.

The Metals Company Overview: Undersea Minerals for the EV Boom

The Metals Company (“TMC”) is a deep-sea minerals exploration firm on a mission to harvest polymetallic nodules – often called “a battery in a rock” – from the ocean floor ^{[231] [232]}. These potato-sized nodules are extraordinarily rich in critical battery metals: nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese. TMC’s business model is to collect nodules from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the Pacific Ocean (in international waters between Hawaii and Mexico) and process them into high-grade metals needed for electric vehicle (EV) batteries, renewable energy technology, and steel alloys ^[233].

Unlike traditional land-based mines, TMC touts its approach as a “lower-impact” alternative to sourcing battery metals. The company has a “dual mission”: (1) supply metals for the clean energy transition with minimal environmental and social impact, and (2) help transition to a circular metal economy ^[234]. In practical terms, TMC plans to lift nodules to the surface, bring them to shore, and refine them with no tailings, no deforestation, and near-zero solid waste ^[235] – a stark contrast to open-pit mines which often generate large waste piles and habitat destruction.

TMC was founded as DeepGreen Metals and went public via SPAC in 2021. It controls exploration rights (through subsidiaries) to three large nodule contract areas in the CCZ, sponsored by the Pacific Island nations of Nauru, Tonga, and Kiribati under the ISA framework ^[236]. In total, the company estimates over 1.6 billion tonnes of nodules in its areas – containing enough nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese to “electrify the entire U.S. passenger vehicle fleet” according to TMC’s claims ^[237]. In August 2025, TMC’s SEC-compliant reports declared 51 million tonnes of probable reserves (NORI-D area) and huge additional resources in other zones ^{[238] [239]}. This underscores the potential scale: an Arthur D. Little study valued the total accessible seabed metals opportunity at $20 trillion ^[240].

However, turning this undersea treasure into reality is a formidable task. The company remains pre-revenue and in development stage – essentially a bet that it can pioneer an entirely new mining industry. TMC’s operations so far include years of environmental baseline studies, small-scale pilot collections, and engineering development with partners. It has no commercial production yet, and will need to overcome technical, regulatory, and environmental hurdles before any revenue gushes in.

Products & Operations: If successful, The Metals Company will produce several commodity products: battery-grade nickel and cobalt sulfates, copper cathodes, and manganese alloy feedstock ^[241]. The raw input for all of these is the polymetallic nodule itself – a rounded rock rich in metals formed over millions of years on the seafloor. TMC’s plan is to use an integrated system: an undersea collector vehicle gathers nodules off the abyssal plain, a riser pipe system lifts them ~4 km up to a production vessel, and then they are shipped as wet nodules to onshore facilities for processing. By avoiding mining of ore and simply collecting loose nodules, TMC hopes to eliminate the need for drilling, blasting, or rock crushing.

TMC’s key industrial partner is Allseas, a major offshore engineering firm. Allseas converted a 228-meter drillship (renamed “Hidden Gem”) to serve as the first ever dedicated nodule mining vessel ^[242]. In 2022, TMC and Allseas conducted a pilot collection trial in TMC’s NORI-D license area, successfully lifting over 3,000 tons of nodules and monitoring environmental impacts ^[243]. The pilot demonstrated the basic viability of the collection system. Notably, preliminary findings on sediment plumes (the cloudy sediment disturbed by the collector) were encouraging: TMC reported in late 2023 that plumes stayed near the seafloor and did not disperse widely in the water column ^{[244] [245]}. In fact, ROV surveys found marine life (e.g. a black coral) still alive just outside the collector tracks one year after the test ^{[246] [247]} – data TMC cites to argue that deep-sea mining impacts can be manageable. (Environmental groups, as discussed later, are far from convinced by these findings.)

Onshore, TMC has run processing pilot programs to prove it can turn nodules into valuable metals. It completed a pilot smelting campaign in 2021 producing a high-grade alloy of nickel-copper-cobalt ^[248], and has been working on refining methods (including a hydrometallurgical circuit to produce battery-grade salts). The company ultimately envisions an integrated supply chain: collect nodules at sea -> process into Ni, Co, Cu, Mn products -> feed the EV battery and steel industries. By being vertically integrated, TMC could potentially capture more value, though it also means tackling multiple engineering challenges simultaneously.

2025 Stock Performance: A Wild Ride on Waves of Hype 🌊

So far, 2025 has been a breakout year for TMC’s stock. After languishing as a penny stock through 2022–2023, The Metals Company caught fire in early 2025. Shares started the year around $1.50-$2, then exploded to over $7 by mid-2025, more than quadrupling in value ^[249]. TMC became one of the year’s hottest small-cap stocks, riding a wave of interest in anything related to EV materials and U.S. critical mineral policy.

Several catalysts fueled this spectacular rally:

• Trump Administration Support: In April 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump (who returned to office in January 2025) signed an Executive Order to boost deep-sea mining. This order directed regulators to expedite seabed mining permits under the U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and even consider strategic stockpiling of seabed metals ^{[250] [251]}. The policy aimed to reduce reliance on China for rare earths and battery metals. TMC’s stock jumped over 40% in the days after the order ^[252]. By July 2025, TMC shares were up ~450% year-over-year, reflecting optimism that U.S. government support would accelerate its path to production ^[253].
• Strategic Investment News: In June 2025, Korea Zinc (a global metals smelter) agreed to invest $85.2 million in TMC ^[254]. This was a landmark deal: TMC’s first major industry partner endorsement (outside of Allseas). Korea Zinc bought ~19.6 million shares at $4.34 (about a 5% stake) and received warrants, signaling confidence in TMC’s project ^[255]. The stock surged on this news, as it bolstered TMC’s balance sheet and credibility. Earlier, in May, TMC had also raised $37M via a direct equity offering at $3.00 ^[256] – so by mid-year the company had over $115M cash, easing near-term dilution fears ^[257]. These cash infusions underpinned the rally and gave TMC an estimated runway through 2026 ^[258].
• Regulatory Progress (U.S. Permits): Another mid-2025 boost came when NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) – which regulates deep-sea mining for U.S.-incorporated entities – confirmed that TMC’s subsidiary’s exploration license applications were in full compliance with U.S. law ^[259]. In late July, NOAA advanced TMC’s two applications into the final certification stage (expected ~100 days) ^[260]. This effectively signaled that TMC would secure U.S. exploration licenses for its target areas, giving it a viable “plan B” path to mine under U.S. jurisdiction if the international (ISA) route remains stalled. TMC’s stock popped on this news, as it suggested the company could start pilot mining under U.S. permits and potentially get an American commercial license even without ISA rules in place ^[261]. CEO Gerard Barron hailed “strong signals from Washington” and a clearer U.S. pathway to production ^[262].

By late July 2025, TMC hit a 52-week high in the upper-$7s. At that point the stock had +400% YTD gains, making it a multi-bagger for early 2025 investors.

However, the ride has been volatile – a true roller coaster. After the summer euphoria, TMC shares pulled back sharply in August. The trigger was the company’s Q2 2025 earnings release (August 14), which reminded the market that TMC is still bleeding cash and far from commercialization. The company reported a $74.3 million net loss for Q2 alone ^[263], driven in part by non-cash charges but also ongoing operating expenses. This sizable loss “reminded investors just how far this mining company is from turning a profit” ^[264]. In the weeks following, TMC’s stock fell over 35% from its late-July peak】 ^[265], dipping to the $5 range by early September.

Since then, TMC has stabilized and traded in the mid-to-high single digits through early October 2025. The stock is still up hugely year-to-date, but the August setback injected some caution. The volatility reflects TMC’s nature as a speculative story stock – driven by news and sentiment swings rather than fundamentals (there are no earnings yet to anchor valuation). Headline risk is high: positive news (e.g. a new partner, policy support) can send it soaring, while any disappointment (delays, financing concerns, etc.) can cause steep drops.

Investors considering TMC now should be prepared for continued volatility. As the company moves toward the critical 2026–2027 timeframe (when it hopes to transition from exploration to exploitation), each piece of news on permitting, partnerships, or test results could whipsaw the stock. Year-to-date, traders who timed the waves were rewarded, but latecomers buying at peaks have felt the whiplash.

Future Outlook and Analyst Expectations 🔭

What’s next for The Metals Company, and what do the experts predict? As of Q4 2025, analysts have a cautious but intrigued outlook on TMC. There is a wide range of potential outcomes priced into the stock, from multi-bagger success to collapse – accordingly, Wall Street’s forecasts vary dramatically.

Consensus Rating & Targets: According to MarketBeat, TMC’s consensus rating is “Hold” based on 5 analysts covering the stock ^[266]. Within that, opinions diverge: 3 analysts rate it a Buy, 1 a Hold, and 1 a Sell ^[267]. Price targets range from a low of $3.75 to a high of $11.00, reflecting very different visions of TMC’s future ^[268]. The average target of ~$7.33 is essentially around the current trading price ^[269], suggesting modest downside (-1%) from recent levels. In short, the street is in “wait-and-see” mode – recognizing TMC’s huge potential but also its significant risks.

Notably, Wedbush Securities has emerged as one of the more bullish voices. In June 2025, Wedbush upgraded TMC to Outperform and raised its price target to $11 (from $6) ^{[270] [271]}. Analyst Dan Ives (better known for covering tech stocks) argued that TMC could be a major beneficiary of U.S. government support for critical minerals. After Trump’s pro-mining executive order, Ives expressed increased confidence in TMC’s growth prospects, seeing it as “well-positioned to be a key player in the critical metal supply chain” with a “first-mover advantage in deep sea mining” ^{[272] [273]}. Wedbush’s $11 target implies significant upside (over +50% from October prices, and >100% from when the call was made in mid-2025). This bullish case hinges on TMC executing its plan and the U.S. enabling the project (possibly via funding or off-take agreements).

On the other end, at least one analyst has a Sell rating (and sub-$4 target), essentially betting that TMC will falter or that the stock’s 2025 surge was overdone. Even those positive on the concept often acknowledge it’s a long-dated story – meaningful revenue isn’t expected until 2028+ if all goes well, so any DCF-style valuation is extremely sensitive to assumptions.

Earnings Forecasts: Given the long pre-revenue stage, there’s minimal analyst consensus on near-term financials. TMC is expected to continue running at a loss for several years, funding its pilot mining system build-out, environmental studies, and corporate costs. Key financial metrics like EPS or EBITDA are not very meaningful at this stage – in fact, TMC has no P/E (negative earnings) and no EV/EBITDA (negative EBITDA). Instead, analysts and investors are focused on milestones and cash burn. The company itself indicates it has sufficient cash for about two more years of development as of mid-2025 ^[274]. By late 2026, if commercial mining is still not approved or imminent, TMC would likely need either a joint-venture investment or another capital raise to bridge to 2027 production.

Analysts will therefore be watching upcoming catalysts:

• Regulatory decisions: Will the International Seabed Authority finally adopt a Mining Code in 2026? Or will the U.S. step in and issue TMC a full commercial license under domestic law? These decisions could make or break the timeline. TMC has guided that it plans to formally apply for an exploitation license for its NORI-D area – it targeted late 2023 for ISA application ^[275], which has likely been submitted and is pending review. Any positive signal on permitting could prompt upgrades or higher targets.
• Pilot Mining & EIA: TMC still needs to complete its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the ISA and demonstrate that commercial operations won’t cause unacceptable harm. The company has conducted multiple offshore campaigns and is compiling data. A final EIA submission and approval (or any major findings) will be a huge swing factor in de-risking the project.
• Offtake Agreements: Securing customers for its future production (e.g. battery manufacturers or automakers) could validate the business model. If TMC announces an offtake MOU or partnership with a Tesla/Panasonic or similar, analysts would likely take it as a bullish signal on demand for seafloor metals.
• Additional Funding/Partners: Conversely, watch for how TMC boosts its capital if needed. So far, strategic equity deals (Korea Zinc, Allseas, etc.) have been the route. If TMC manages to bring in a new deep-pocket partner (perhaps a global miner or automaker) on favorable terms, it could extend its cash runway and improve sentiment. On the other hand, a large dilutive equity offering or costly debt could sour the market.

In summary, the future forecast for TMC is highly binary. If everything goes right – regulations permit mining by 2027, TMC hits its project milestones, and metals prices remain strong – the company could tap into a multi-decade, multi-billion dollar resource, potentially making today’s $2–3B market cap look cheap. However, any major setback (regulatory rejection, environmental show-stopper, or inability to raise capital) could render the stock overvalued even at $7.

At present, the objectively likely scenario is that TMC continues to trade largely on news. Don’t expect meaningful revenue or earnings in 2025 or 2026. Analysts will be updating their models (which currently likely assume first revenue ~2028) as new information comes. For now, they are keeping one foot on the gas (acknowledging the huge TAM and momentum) and one foot on the brake (recognizing the unproven nature and risks). The consensus ‘Hold’ encapsulates this balanced uncertainty ^[276].

Recent News & Catalysts 🚀📰

TMC’s journey in 2025 has been eventful. Here are some of the most impactful recent news and announcements affecting the stock:

• July 2025 – U.S. Policy Shift: As mentioned, President Trump’s April executive order on deep-sea mining became a major narrative ^{[277] [278]}. By July, media outlets reported that “Investors are ready to go all-in on deep sea mining”, noting TMC’s big stock jump in response ^{[279] [280]}. The order not only expedited NOAA permits but also encouraged the government to consider taking stakes or stockpiling metals. This raised speculation that TMC (as a prime U.S.-linked player) might benefit from federal support. Indeed, such speculation materialized in other cases – e.g. Lithium Americas (LAC) saw its stock surge 74% in one day in September on reports the U.S. government was looking to acquire a 10% stake ^[281]. While TMC has no confirmed government stake, the trend of U.S. intervention in critical mineral companies has boosted the entire sector’s valuations.
• August 2025 – First-Ever Nodule Reserves Declared: On August 4, 2025, TMC announced a landmark technical milestone – it published two NI 43-101 / S-K 1300 compliant studies, including a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) for its NORI-D project ^[282]. The PFS was the world’s first to declare proven or probable mineral reserves for a deep-sea nodule project ^[283]. It pegged NORI-D’s NPV at $5.5 billion (at a 27% IRR) with 18-year mine life, producing ~70k tons Cu, 97k tons Ni, 7k tons Co per year at steady state ^[284]. In addition, an Initial Economic Assessment of TMC’s broader areas yielded an extra $18.1B NPV potential ^[285]. These reports were a positive validation that the project can be economically viable – essentially providing third-party backing to TMC’s long-term projections. The stock reaction was neutral-to-positive; while the numbers are huge, investors know they hinge on obtaining permits. Still, formally quantifying the resource’s value helped TMC’s narrative (and was likely aimed at both regulators and investors to show the prize at stake).
• August 2025 – NOAA Compliance Notice: On Aug 11, 2025, TMC received formal notice from NOAA that its applications were in full compliance under the U.S. Deep-Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, with priority rights affirmed for its two target areas ^[286]. This news confirmed that NOAA found TMC’s exploration plans and financial/technical qualifications satisfactory. The applications moved into a final 100-day certification phase ^[287]. This was big news for TMC, effectively giving it a green light on the U.S. side for exploration. Certification (expected by Q4 2025) would then set the stage for TMC to potentially apply for a U.S. commercial recovery permit as soon as regulations allow ^[288]. The significance: TMC is no longer solely at the mercy of ISA’s timeline; it has a parallel track with U.S. oversight. This development contributed to the late-July share price spike (up to ~$7.50) before the subsequent pullback ^[289].
• August 14, 2025 – Q2 Results & Corporate Update: TMC’s Q2 earnings release (though TMC has no revenue, it reports expenses and updates) was a mix of good and bad news. The bad: a large net loss ($74M) and continued negative cash flow ^[290], reminding investors of dilution risk. The good: all the milestones discussed (NOAA, PFS studies, Korea Zinc deal) were highlighted, and management confidently reaffirmed a Q4 2027 production start target ^[291]. CEO Gerard Barron’s commentary was optimistic, calling the PFS a “defining moment” showing a “clear, capital-efficient path to first production” and lauding the Korea Zinc partnership as strengthening the “route to market” ^[292]. He also noted “strong signals from Washington” and that each regulatory step “reduces risk, sharpens our timeline, and strengthens the investment case” ^[293]. Despite the upbeat tone, the market focused on the cash burn, and the stock dipped on these results, as noted, losing some of the summer’s gains.
• June 2025 – Sponsorship Agreements & Board Appointments: TMC took steps to solidify relationships with its sponsoring nations. In June and August, it signed updated agreements with the governments of Nauru and Tonga to ensure those countries continue their sponsorship in return for economic benefits and a share in any future U.S.-regulated mining as well ^{[294] [295]}. This was important because TMC’s original plan hinged on Nauru sponsoring an ISA application – by renewing the partnership, TMC keeps Nauru on side even as it pursues the U.S. route (the new agreements guarantee Nauru and Tonga will get “continuity benefits” even if mining happens under a U.S. permit) ^{[296] [297]}. Additionally, TMC added Michael Hess (an energy sector veteran) and Alex Spiro (a well-known attorney) to its Board ^[298]. Hess and Spiro are expected to help navigate U.S. regulatory and legal waters ^[299]. These moves didn’t move the stock immediately, but they shore up the company’s long-term positioning.
• July 2025 – Industry Buzz (Lockheed & ISA): The Financial Times reported that Lockheed Martin (which holds old seabed exploration licenses via a U.S. subsidiary) is in talks to develop its Pacific seabed assets, given renewed interest in undersea mining ^[300]. Lockheed’s COO said there is now “large interest” in its deposits and that the U.S. could set a “gold standard for commercial recovery of nodules” ^[301]. Around the same time, the ISA’s 30th Session meetings in Jamaica (July 2025) concluded without a Mining Code yet again ^[302]. No new timeline was agreed, pushing the next ISA meeting to March 2026 ^[303]. These news items underscore the dynamic backdrop: big players like Lockheed eyeing the space (potential competition or partners for TMC), and continued international delays adding urgency to alternative paths. TMC’s stock didn’t react sharply to the Lockheed news, but it reinforces the narrative that “deep-sea mining is heating up”. If anything, Lockheed’s interest was seen as validating TMC’s vision (the pie is large enough that even Lockheed wants in).
• Legal Win: Another under-the-radar positive development – TMC prevailed in a shareholder lawsuit related to its environmental disclosures. In mid-2025 a U.S. District Judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit that had alleged TMC misled investors about environmental risks and backing ^[304]. The judge ruled that TMC’s comparisons of deep-sea mining to terrestrial mining were not misleading, noting the company had acknowledged uncertainties and potential harm ^[305]. Importantly, the judge wrote: “It is eminently possible that (1) deep-sea mining causes meaningful environmental harm, and yet (2) such harm is significantly less than the harm caused by existing methods.” ^[306]. This legal win not only saves TMC from potential damages, but also amounts to a U.S. court recognizing a key part of TMC’s thesis (that deep-sea mining, while impactful, might be comparatively less harmful than land mining). TMC and others can be expected to cite this as they make their case to regulators and the public.

In sum, recent news has been a mixed bag but generally trending in TMC’s favor: the company is hitting its internal milestones (technical studies, pilot tests, financing) and navigating the geopolitical landscape adeptly (leveraging U.S. support while keeping ISA options open). The stock’s volatility around these events reflects a market trying to price in breakthroughs that are exciting but not definitive. Each positive catalyst (e.g. permit progress) inches TMC closer to its goal, but until actual mining begins, there remains an air of “show me” skepticism.

Investors should keep an eye on upcoming events such as the March 2026 ISA meeting, any further U.S. regulatory actions, and TMC’s own quarterly updates (which should detail progress on permitting and pilot operations). The news flow will likely remain the primary driver of TMC’s stock in the coming year.

The Metals Company’s Business Model & Strategy

TMC’s business model is predicated on being a first-mover in the nascent deep-sea mining industry and supplying critical minerals in a more sustainable way. Let’s break down key elements of its strategy and operations:

• Resource Base: The heart of TMC’s value is its access to vast mineral resources on the seafloor. Through its subsidiaries Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI) and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd (TOML), TMC holds exploration contracts for specific areas in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, granted by the ISA. These areas collectively span thousands of square kilometers and contain billions of tonnes of polymetallic nodules. The NORI-D area alone (the first planned mine site) is estimated to have 356 million tonnes of wet nodules ^[307], containing high grades of Ni, Cu, Co, Mn. Unlike a land deposit, nodules are essentially ready-made ore lying on the seafloor surface – no overburden to remove, no hardrock drilling. TMC’s strategy is to delineate enough reserves and resources to support decades of production, which it has largely done on paper (as seen by the 2025 resource estimates).
• Extraction Method: TMC is pioneering the extraction method in partnership with offshore engineering firms. The system involves: a seabed harvester vehicle (remotely operated, crawls the ocean floor at ~4,000m depth, picking up nodules and separating sediment), a riser pipe connected to a production support vessel that pumps nodules up as a slurry, and surface processing/storage on the vessel. The nodules then would be transferred to bulk carriers and shipped to shore. TMC’s 2022 pilot achieved a continuous lift of nodules to the surface ship, proving the concept ^[308]. The key now is scaling this to a full production system. TMC will likely need multiple collector vehicles and a larger or additional production vessel to reach its target of ~3 million tonnes of dry nodules per year in steady state (which equates to ~10.8 million tonnes wet nodules per year as per the PFS) ^[309]. Allseas is expected to provide at least one full-scale mining vessel (the Hidden Gem) and possibly convert others if needed. The technology risk is not trivial – operating machinery at abyssal depths continuously is challenging. But the components (slurry pumping, ROVs, etc.) leverage known tech from offshore oil & gas and dredging industries. TMC’s competitive edge is partly in having advanced this system further than any competitor so far, via the pilot.
• Processing & Refining: On land, TMC’s plan is to use a combination of pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy to process nodules. One envisioned flowsheet is: smelt nodules into an iron-rich alloy (to concentrate Ni, Cu, Co), then use hydrometallurgical refining (likely leaching) to extract nickel and cobalt sulfate, copper cathode, etc., while manganese can be extracted or left in the alloy for sale to steelmakers ^[310]. Importantly, nodules have no sulfide minerals, meaning no sulfuric acid plant needed and no SO₂ emissions, and they have few toxic elements (like no mercury, low arsenic) – making them relatively “clean” ore. TMC claims it can achieve “near-zero solid waste” because almost everything in a nodule is a useful oxide or metal ^[311]. There are no tailings piles; residual material can be used as construction aggregate or backfill. If these claims hold, the refining process could indeed have a smaller footprint than that of typical nickel laterite or copper mines (which often leave behind tailings and slag). Still, processing nodules at scale has never been done commercially. TMC will need to build or partner in building a processing plant – likely requiring hundreds of millions in capital. This is another hurdle down the road (possibly financed via a JV with a battery metals refinery partner).
• Sales & Marketing: TMC’s prospective “products” include nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate (for lithium-ion battery cathodes), copper cathodes (for wiring/electronics), and manganese silicate or manganese alloy feedstock (for steel production). The target customers are battery cathode manufacturers and stainless steel or alloy steel companies. For example, nickel and cobalt could be sold into the EV battery supply chain – these are high-value products in deficit as EV demand grows. Copper is widely traded; TMC’s copper would just join global supply for electrical uses. Manganese (in the form TMC might produce) would likely go to steel companies. A possible strategy for TMC is to secure offtake agreements with users of these metals – perhaps an automaker or battery company commits to buy X tonnes of nickel/cobalt from TMC at pre-agreed terms, which could also help finance the project. So far, no specific offtake deals have been announced, but Korea Zinc’s involvement is notable: Korea Zinc is a leading metals refiner and is developing precursor cathode materials (pCAM) ^{[312] [313]}. Korea Zinc’s investment suggests they could be a future processing or offtake partner (they have facilities that could process intermediate products from nodules). Additionally, Glencore – a major commodity trader – was an early investor in TMC prior to the SPAC merger; it’s conceivable Glencore might handle trading of some of TMC’s output. Allseas, for its part, is entitled to a portion of nodule production under a profit-sharing arrangement (in return for providing engineering and vessels).
• ESG and Branding: A big part of TMC’s model is differentiation on ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) grounds. The company markets nodules as “lower-environmental-footprint” metals – no child labor (c.f. DRC cobalt), no rainforest removal (c.f. Indonesian nickel laterites), etc. ^{[314] [315]}. It also emphasizes the potential to recycle these metals endlessly (circular economy) once they’re brought into use ^[316]. This narrative is aimed at obtaining a “social license to operate” and appealing to end-users (like EV companies) that are under pressure to clean up their supply chains. In practice, TMC will have to prove these claims with hard data from its lifecycle assessments. It commissioned Benchmark Minerals to do a lifecycle CO₂ analysis, which reportedly showed significant advantages of nodules over land ores ^[317]. By continuing to engage scientists (it has numerous independent researchers involved in its campaigns) and being public with data, TMC is trying to position itself as the responsible pioneer. Whether that convinces skeptics remains to be seen, but it’s integral to their strategy. As part of ESG, TMC has also promised revenue-sharing and benefits to sponsoring states (Nauru, Tonga, Kiribati), projecting millions of dollars and local development projects for these small Pacific nations – critical for maintaining support.
• Regulatory Navigation: Strategically, TMC has hedged its bets by pursuing a “dual-track” permitting approach: the international route via ISA and a domestic U.S. route via NOAA. Initially, TMC’s plan (through NORI with Nauru) was to use Nauru’s trigger of the “two-year rule” to force the ISA to consider an exploitation application by 2023 ^[318]. Indeed, TMC intended to submit an application by Q3 2023 ^[319]. It’s unclear if that application has been officially submitted or is on hold due to ISA’s lack of a Mining Code. Meanwhile, seeing ISA delays, TMC smartly engaged with the U.S. government. The U.S., not a party to UNCLOS, has its own seabed mining law (DSHMRA). NOAA’s recent moves (compliance notice, proposed regulatory revisions) suggest the U.S. is gearing up to permit commercial mining in international waters for U.S. companies ^[320]. TMC is at the forefront here. In July 2025, NOAA even published draft rule revisions that would allow simultaneous granting of exploration and commercial permits – effectively streamlining the process ^[321]. TMC commented that with these signals, the U.S. path to production is “becoming clearer” ^[322]. The company’s strategy is to be ready to mine under whichever regime gives the green light first. If ISA approves an exploitation contract in 2026, great – TMC will operate under UN oversight (paying royalties to ISA and Nauru). If ISA remains bogged down but the U.S. offers a license, TMC could operate under U.S. law (though operating in international waters with just a U.S. permit could raise international legal questions). In any case, regulatory agility is key to TMC’s plan – it has kept options open and engaged both channels.

To sum up, The Metals Company’s business model is high-risk, high-reward and quite unlike a typical mining junior. It isn’t just exploring one deposit and hoping to sell it; it’s attempting to create an entire industry’s supply chain. TMC’s strategy involves simultaneously being a miner, a metallurgy company, a lobbyist, and a sustainability pitchman. The upside is huge if it works (nearly unlimited resources in a metal-hungry world). The execution challenges are equally huge.

So far, in 2025, TMC has shown it can advance the technical and regulatory pieces steadily (successful pilot, securing funds, progressing permits). The next 1-2 years will test its ability to transition from exploration to exploitation mode – essentially, going from concept to construction. Investors will want to watch if TMC can lock in the remaining pieces (final permits, project financing, maybe offtake deals) by 2026 to begin ordering equipment and infrastructure for 2027 production.

SWOT Analysis of The Metals Company (TMC)

Analyzing The Metals Company through a SWOT lens (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) provides a structured view of its investment merits and risks:

Strengths:

• Vast Resource with High Grades: TMC controls the world’s largest estimated undeveloped source of battery metals ^[323]. The polymetallic nodules in its license areas have rich concentrations of Ni, Co, Cu, Mn – all in one ore. The sheer scale (enough metal for hundreds of millions of EVs by TMC’s estimates ^[324]) means if TMC can monetize even a fraction, revenue potential is enormous. The nodules’ grades compare favorably to many land deposits (e.g. ~1.3% nickel, 0.2% cobalt, 1% copper, 30% manganese in nodules ^[325], which is competitive with good nickel sulfide ores on a Ni-equivalent basis).
• First Mover & Technological Lead: TMC is the undisputed leader among deep-sea mining startups ^[326]. It has a multi-year head start in developing harvesting technology and collecting environmental data. The successful pilot in 2022 put it ahead of would-be competitors. This first-mover advantage not only attracts partners (like Allseas, Maersk, Glencore earlier) but also means TMC is helping set industry standards. Any competitor will likely have to follow trails blazed by TMC in engineering and regulation. “TMC is somewhat of a poster child for the industry… very advanced, well funded, with a great team,” noted one industry watcher ^[327].
• Strategic Partnerships and Backers: TMC has aligned itself with strong partners: Allseas (providing offshore engineering and vessels), Korea Zinc (expert in refining and a potential offtaker) ^{[328] [329]}, and it has investment from major commodity players like Glencore (which participated in earlier funding). These partners not only bring cash but also expertise and credibility. Additionally, the involvement of governments (Nauru, Tonga, and tacitly the U.S.) gives TMC clout. For instance, Wedbush’s bullish view cites TMC’s “significant U.S. support” and sees it as a key player in reducing dependency on China ^[330].
• Environmental Narrative (Relative Advantage): Although controversial, TMC’s “metals with lower footprint” narrative is a strength in dealings with stakeholders. The company can point to studies (like its lifecycle analysis and pilot results) suggesting that nodules could supply needed metals with 70% less carbon emissions, 100% less child labor, and dramatically less biodiversity loss than typical mining (claims TMC has made in its impact report). A U.S. Judge even acknowledged the logic that deep-sea mining could cause less harm than current mining ^[331]. This positions TMC to potentially gain support from automakers or policymakers who are caught between the demand for critical minerals and the goal to minimize environmental/social harm. If TMC can indeed prove its operation is “lower impact” in practice, that would be a huge strength and selling point.
• Robust Balance Sheet (near-term): After the mid-2025 fundraises, TMC’s balance sheet is in decent shape for a pre-revenue firm – ~$116M cash, no significant debt ^[332]. Its cash burn (operating cash outflow) in Q2 was about $10.6M ^[333] (excluding one-time items), indicating the cash on hand can cover ~2-3 years of baseline operations. This reduces the short-term financing risk. Moreover, the backing of deep-pocketed allies (Korea Zinc, Allseas, possibly the U.S. government in future) means TMC might secure non-dilutive funding or prepayments for the hefty capex later. For now, at least, bankruptcy risk is off the table in the immediate term.

Weaknesses:

• No Revenue & Unproven Commercial Tech: Fundamentally, TMC is still a pre-revenue venture with an unproven business model. It has not yet demonstrated that it can operate a commercial-scale mining system continuously or profitably. All financial projections (NPVs, IRRs) are based on studies and assumptions, not operating history. The company is burning cash with zero income – a classic weakness that means continued reliance on external funding. Until it actually produces and sells metals, there will be lingering doubts on technical feasibility and cost assumptions.
• Regulatory Dependence and Uncertainty: TMC’s fate is highly dependent on regulators’ decisions, which is a big weakness because it’s outside the company’s full control. The international regulatory vacuum – ISA’s failure (so far) to finalize exploitation rules – means TMC cannot commence mining under the original expected regime yet ^[334]. While the U.S. option exists, that too is uncertain in timeline and could face legal challenges (since mining in international waters without ISA approval might spark international disputes). TMC basically needs legal permission to turn its resource into revenue, and until that’s locked in, the project is in limbo. This binary regulatory hurdle is a glaring weak point – not faced by terrestrial miners who operate under established national laws.
• Significant Cash Burn & Future Funding Needs: Despite current cash, the scale of TMC’s undertaking will require massive capital expenditure to go into full production. The PFS hints at what might be needed: multiple collectors, a processing plant, etc., likely totaling in the hundreds of millions if not over a billion dollars investment. TMC will almost certainly have to raise more capital (debt or equity) in the next 1-2 years to fund procurement of production equipment and onshore facilities. That implies potential share dilution (a weakness for current shareholders) or taking on debt (which for a company with no cash flow is tricky). If market conditions are poor or if environmental opposition scares off investors, TMC could struggle to secure the needed funds on good terms. The August financing at $3/share (when stock was around $4) shows the company had to give a discount and warrants ^[335]; future raises might also be at unfavorable terms if the stock is volatile.
• Public Perception and ESG Skepticism: While TMC touts an environmental advantage, it faces a public relations challenge. Many stakeholders (from NGOs to segments of the public) view deep-sea mining as inherently destructive, dubbing it a threat to the “common heritage of mankind.” TMC’s clash with Greenpeace in 2023 – where activists protested its test mining in the Pacific – garnered negative press ^[336]. The company is sometimes painted as a villain in media, which is a weakness in terms of brand and potentially can influence political decisions. It has to constantly defend its image and justify that it’s not going to “destroy the ocean.” This uphill battle for hearts and minds is costly and not guaranteed to succeed.
• Concentrated Asset/Single Project Risk: TMC’s entire business is essentially tied to one project concept in one geographic zone (CCZ nodules). This lack of diversification is a weakness – if something goes wrong in that zone (say an unforeseen ecological problem or a legal barrier), TMC doesn’t have other independent assets to fall back on. Many mining companies have multiple mines or projects; TMC is all-in on deep-sea nodules. Additionally, nodules are a somewhat uniform product – if battery chemistry shifts away from these metals significantly (e.g. no cobalt batteries, reduced nickel usage, etc.), it could erode the value of TMC’s product basket. The company is leveraged to the continued demand for Ni, Co, Cu, Mn in the EV and steel sectors.

Opportunities:

• Booming Demand for EV and Clean Energy Metals: The macro trend of electrification and renewable energy is a huge opportunity for TMC. EV sales are surging globally, and analysts project a multi-decade supercycle in demand for battery metals like nickel and cobalt. Traditional sources of these metals face challenges (grade declines, geopolitical risks, ESG pressures), so new supplies are desperately needed. If TMC can tap even a portion of its resource, it stands to ride a long wave of high demand and potentially high prices for its metals. The shift by automakers to high-nickel and even high-manganese battery chemistries (as noted by GM and Ford’s plans for manganese-rich batteries by 2028) could play directly into TMC’s hands ^[337]. Polymetallic nodules have all those ingredients in one package, which is very rare geologically. This gives TMC an opportunity to position itself as a one-stop solution for critical minerals supply for the EV industry.
• Supportive Government Policies & Funding: There is a clear opportunity for TMC to benefit from government initiatives in the U.S. and allied countries to secure critical minerals. The U.S. has shown willingness to invest directly in companies (e.g., the Department of Energy’s deals with Lithium Americas, and DOD’s stake in MP Materials) ^{[338] [339]}. If TMC continues to make progress, it could potentially attract U.S. government funding – for example, through the Defense Production Act or Department of Energy loans. In July, Trump’s executive order specifically mentioned encouraging the stockpiling of seabed metals ^[340]. This hints that if TMC produces nodules or intermediate products, the government might be a ready buyer (reducing market risk). Moreover, as countries decouple from Chinese supply chains, TMC could strike partnership deals with governments or companies in Japan, South Korea, or Europe that are seeking alternative sources of critical minerals.
• Potential to Form Joint Ventures or Sell Stake in Projects: TMC could capitalize on its first-mover status by bringing in a major mining or industrial partner at the project level. A big diversified miner (like BHP, Rio Tinto, etc.) might eventually decide they want exposure to deep-sea mining once it’s closer to reality. TMC could negotiate a JV where the partner funds some of the capex in exchange for equity in the project or offtake rights. Similarly, large battery manufacturers or automakers might invest directly in TMC or its project to secure supply (not unlike Tesla’s involvement with nickel mines or GM’s investment in Lithium Americas). These potential deals represent opportunities for TMC to de-risk and fund its development without solely relying on public equity markets.
• Global Need for Diversifying Critical Metals Supply: Geopolitically, the timing is opportune – Western nations are intent on diversifying supply away from conflict zones and China. Cobalt from the deep sea, for instance, could reduce reliance on the Congo (currently ~70% of cobalt comes from DRC). Nickel from international waters could diversify away from Indonesia and Russia. This need creates an opportunity for TMC to position itself as a strategic asset. Already, Lockheed’s renewed interest and statements indicate that big players see deep-sea mining as a strategic play for resource security ^[341]. TMC could license its technology or partner with others (like potentially working with Lockheed’s dormant licenses or others) to expand its footprint. Essentially, being an early entrant, TMC could franchise its know-how to other area license holders in future, creating another revenue stream (this is speculative but possible if it becomes the expert in this field).
• High Margin Potential: If TMC’s cost projections hold true, the company could enjoy very attractive margins. The PFS projected a 43% EBITDA margin at steady state and cash operating costs of just ~$16 per wet tonne of nodules (which translate to a nickel production cost of ~$1,065/ton with credits) ^[342]. That is extremely low-cost nickel – in fact, negative cost if byproduct credits are counted (the Initial Assessment even showed negative cash costs per tonne Ni for the broader resource) ^[343]. This suggests an opportunity for exceptional profitability if/when operations commence. Unlike many mines, nodules require no expensive digging or blasting, and if the system is efficient, a single vessel could collect enormous volume. The opportunity is that TMC might establish itself as a low-cost producer in the market, giving it resilience across commodity price cycles.

Threats:

• Environmental Backlash and Possible Moratorium: The greatest threat to TMC is the powerful environmental opposition to deep-sea mining. Influential NGOs, scientists, and even some governments are lobbying for a moratorium on all seabed mining until more is known about the deep ocean ecosystems ^{[344] [345]}. Over 35 countries (including economic powers like Germany, France, Canada, etc.) have called for a precautionary pause ^[346]. If a political consensus formed to impose a temporary or permanent ban on deep-sea mining, TMC’s project could be frozen or terminated. Even absent an official ban, ongoing activism could delay approvals significantly or impose onerous regulations that make the project uneconomic. For example, if the ISA sets extremely strict environmental standards (say tiny allowable sediment plumes or expensive monitoring requirements), it could undermine feasibility. TMC is working to counter this by presenting data and engaging with stakeholders, but the PR war is far from won. As one publication put it, deep-sea mining threatens sea life “in a way no one is thinking about” (due to the unknowns) ^[347], reflecting the deep unease that could translate to regulatory risk.
• Regulatory/Legal Hurdles: Beyond environmental rejection, TMC faces the risk of bureaucratic paralysis or adverse legal developments. The ISA might continue to drag its feet, effectively stalling TMC’s international permit indefinitely. While the ISA “two-year rule” compels consideration of an application, it doesn’t guarantee approval – the ISA Council could still decide not to grant a contract, or impose additional waits. On the U.S. side, a future administration (post-2025) could reverse the current pro-mining stance. If U.S. politics shift, NOAA could slow-walk permits or environmental groups might sue to stop a U.S.-licensed project (on grounds of international law or insufficient review). There’s also the uncertainty of royalty regimes – the ISA will likely charge royalties on nodule extraction; if set too high, that could threaten economics. In short, the regulatory goalposts could move in unfavorable ways.
• Technical and Operational Risks: Mining at 4-5 km depth is inherently risky and challenging. There could be unforeseen engineering problems when scaling up: for instance, equipment breakdowns in the extreme pressure and corrosive saltwater environment, or pipeline clogging issues, or difficulty in maneuvering the collector on uneven seabeds. Any major technical failure in early operations could cause cost overruns or long delays. Additionally, TMC will have to establish a supply chain for spare parts, trained crew, etc., in a remote ocean setting – akin to running an offshore oil platform but without the decades of experience those industries have. The operational risk is that real-world production might fall short of projections (maybe the collector can’t achieve the hoped-for 300 tonnes per hour, or downtime is higher than expected, etc.). This would hurt the project economics. Since no one has done this at scale, there is a threat of unknown unknowns causing trouble.
• Commodity Price Volatility: While TMC benefits from strong metals prices now, the markets for nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese can be volatile. A significant drop in these commodity prices by the late 2020s (due to say, oversupply, substitutions, or lower demand) would threaten project viability. For example, if by 2030 battery tech reduces use of nickel or eliminates cobalt (some battery chemistries like LFP have no nickel/cobalt), then the revenues from those metals could underwhelm. TMC’s economic studies assume certain price levels (often optimistic). If actual prices come in much lower, the multi-billion NPVs could evaporate. So, market risk is a threat – though perhaps a lesser immediate concern given likely deficits in these metals mid-term.
• Competition & New Alternatives: Although TMC is ahead, it’s not alone in seeking undersea riches. Other entities are waiting in the wings: e.g., Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR) from Belgium is testing its own harvester ^[348]; a Norwegian company Loke Marine acquired UK’s licenses and is well-funded ^[349]; even China and Russia have state-sponsored programs (COMRA for China, and Russia’s Yuzhmorgeologiya) ^{[350] [351]}. If deep-sea mining proves viable, big players could quickly scale up and potentially flood the market or outcompete TMC with larger resources or state backing. There’s also a threat from alternative sources of these metals: for example, land-based mining could increase (new nickel mines in Canada, Australia, etc.), or recycling technologies might improve (reducing primary demand), or even new battery chemistries (like solid-state or sodium-ion batteries) could reduce dependence on metals like cobalt and nickel. Any of these developments could shrink the window of opportunity that TMC currently hopes to fill.

In summary, TMC’s SWOT shows a company with incredible strengths and opportunities, but counterbalanced by very real weaknesses and existential threats. This is not a low-risk enterprise by any means – it’s a moonshot attempt to revolutionize mining. Investors must weigh the potential reward of a successful first mover controlling “the Saudi Arabia of battery metals” vs. the risk of a high-profile failure if obstacles prove insurmountable.

Expert Opinions & Commentary 💬

Throughout 2025, a variety of experts – from stock analysts to industry CEOs to scientists – have weighed in on The Metals Company and deep-sea mining. Here are a few notable pieces of commentary:

• Dan Ives, Wedbush Tech Analyst: “Overall, we believe that TMC is well-positioned to be a key player in the critical metal supply chain due to its first-mover advantage in deep sea mining while also receiving significant U.S. support as it looks to reduce its dependency on China in the global supply of critical [minerals].” ^[352] – (Comment from July 2025 when upgrading TMC to Outperform). Interpretation: Ives highlights the geopolitical strategic angle – TMC could fill a crucial gap for the West’s supply chains. His confidence grew after seeing the Trump administration’s backing, viewing TMC as aligning perfectly with that policy push.
• Gerard Barron, TMC CEO: “The publication of our PFS for the NORI-D Project marks a defining moment for TMC – showing the potential of a clear, capital-efficient path to first production… With strong signals from Washington… the U.S. pathway to production for NORI-D is becoming clearer. Each step reduces risk, sharpens our execution timeline, and strengthens the investment case. We are targeting first production from NORI-D in Q4 2027, unlocking one of the largest and most strategic resources of critical metals in the world.” ^{[353] [354]} (Q2 2025 press release). Interpretation: Barron is understandably bullish, framing TMC’s progress as de-risking the project step by step. He emphasizes the “strategic” nature of the resource – likely to appeal to investors and governments alike. His mention of Washington’s signals suggests TMC is confident the U.S. will pave the way if ISA doesn’t.
• Iceberg Research (Short Seller): “We believe TMC is headed toward the same failure that doomed its predecessor, Nautilus Minerals… TMC’s projections are based on a wildly optimistic preliminary assessment… including expectations of greater EBITDA margins than Microsoft.” ^[355] (May 2025 short report). Interpretation: This harsh critique comes from Iceberg Research, which drew parallels to Nautilus Minerals, a deep-sea mining venture that went bankrupt in 2019. Iceberg essentially accuses TMC of overhyping its economics and underestimating challenges – noting that Nautilus, which had similarly promising resource and tech, couldn’t overcome financing and technical hurdles. The jibe about “margins greater than Microsoft” highlights skepticism about TMC’s profitability claims. This contrarian view is a reminder that not everyone is sold on the TMC story – and short sellers see potential downside if history repeats.
• Judge Eric Komitee (U.S. District Court): “It is eminently possible that (1) deep-sea mining causes meaningful environmental harm, and yet (2) such harm is significantly less than the harm caused by existing methods.” ^[356] (Excerpt from judgment dismissing a lawsuit against TMC). Interpretation: This nuanced statement by a federal judge captures the complex trade-off debate at the heart of TMC’s proposition. Essentially, even if TMC’s operations will damage the deep ocean, they might still be preferable relative to the damage done by more strip mines, rainforests cut for nickel, etc. This perspective somewhat vindicates TMC’s argument that we should compare alternatives, not idealize zero impact. Coming from a legal authority, it gives some credence to TMC’s environmental stance – a quote TMC will likely cite in its advocacy.
• Alex Kisman, Greenpeace (hypothetical): While not a direct quote from our gathered text, it’s worth noting environmental experts often counter that “We’ve barely explored the deep ocean, and companies like TMC want to strip-mine it. This could be catastrophic for marine ecosystems – risking extinctions of unknown species and destruction of carbon sinks for a quick profit.” (Greenpeace and Deep Sea Conservation Coalition have released many statements to this effect). Interpretation: The environmental expert view underscores irreversibility – once mining starts, any damage to these slow-growing deep-sea habitats (some organisms live on nodules themselves) cannot be undone, and we might not even know what we’ve lost. They argue more science is needed and that alternatives (like recycling or sourcing more from land responsibly) should be pursued instead. This viewpoint is driving the push for a moratorium and is a major external opinion impacting TMC’s risk profile.
• Financial Times report on Lockheed Martin: Frank St. John, Lockheed COO, said there was now a “large interest” in the company’s [seabed] deposits from groups involved in undersea mining… “[Lockheed] believe[s] the US has the opportunity to develop a gold standard for commercial recovery of nodules in an environmentally responsible manner.” ^[357]. Interpretation: Here we have a defense industry executive essentially validating TMC’s domain. Lockheed getting involved suggests deep-sea mining is moving from fringe to mainstream (if a company like Lockheed is talking about it, the stakes are high). The quote also signals that major players want to do this the right way (environmentally responsible, a “gold standard”). For TMC, Lockheed’s interest could mean either future competition or even collaboration (Lockheed might license its areas to others since it’s not a mining firm by trade). In any case, expert commentary like this shows the strategic importance nations are assigning to ocean minerals, which bodes well for TMC’s cause if managed well.

Overall, expert commentary on TMC ranges from optimistic (Wall St. bulls, company execs) to deeply skeptical (short sellers, environmental groups). This polarity is typical for a disruptive venture. For investors, it’s crucial to digest both sides: the growth story and strategic rationale versus the execution and ethical challenges.

Financial Performance & Key Metrics 📈

Since its SPAC listing in late 2021, The Metals Company’s financial performance is more about spending money to build the project than traditional revenue metrics. Here we’ll summarize TMC’s financial state and key ratios as of 2025:

• Revenue: $0.00. TMC has no commercial revenues yet (aside from trivial interest income on cash). This will remain the case until it begins selling nodules or refined metals, which is slated for 2027 at the earliest. Investors should not expect any top-line revenue in 2025 or 2026, and thus no price-to-sales ratio is meaningful.
• Earnings:Negative and volatile. TMC reported a net loss of $74.3 million in Q2 2025 ^[358]. For the first half of 2025, losses likely exceeded $100M (Q1 included some one-time charges related to financings, perhaps warrant liabilities as the stock price rose, which can inflate accounting losses). The large Q2 loss was partly due to non-cash accounting items (e.g., the rising share price caused an increase in the estimated fair value of outstanding warrants, which hits the P&L). On an operating basis, Q2 operating loss was ~$22M ^[359], and cash used in operations was ~$10.6M ^[360]. These figures suggest an operating expense run-rate of ~$40M/year, mostly for R&D, environmental studies, payroll, and vessel operations during the pilot. EPS is deeply negative (e.g., Q2 net loss per share was $0.20 ^[361]), but EPS is not very informative now.
• Cash & Liquidity: As of June 30, 2025, TMC had $115.8 million in cash and equivalents ^[362]. This was boosted by the Q2 financings (Korea Zinc $85M and the $35M private placement) ^{[363] [364]}. The company carries minimal debt (none material; it may have some lease obligations, but no traditional bank debt). With ~$10M quarterly cash burn (which could increase if development accelerates), the cash is expected to last into late 2026 or early 2027 before needing replenishment ^[365]. This assumes no major capex spend yet – once they move to build mining systems, capex will surge and likely require project financing.
• Market Capitalization: Around $2.6–2.9 billion as of Oct 2025 (fluctuating with share price) ^[366]. Notably, this is up from just ~$613 million at end of 2024 ^[367] – a reflection of the 2025 stock price jump. For context, at ~$2.6B market cap, TMC is valued higher than many junior mining companies with proven reserves, indicating the market’s pricing of its unique potential (and/or speculative froth).
• Enterprise Value (EV): Roughly ~$2.5B (since no debt, EV ≈ Market cap minus cash). With EV in the billions and zero revenue, TMC’s valuation is entirely based on future expectations. EV/Resource could be considered: TMC has ~1.5 billion tonnes of nodules in resource; at $2.5B EV that’s ~$1.67 per tonne of wet nodules in the ground (or rather, in the ocean). Considering each tonne of wet nodules might contain ~$500+ worth of metals at current prices, the EV/resource metric might actually seem modest – but that’s because extraction cost and risk are huge. It shows the market assigning a small percentage of the in-situ value to TMC currently (which is normal in early-stage mining valuations).
• Price-to-Book (P/B): As a SPAC-merged entity, TMC’s book equity is somewhat inflated by intangible asset accounting. At mid-2025, book equity would include the cash plus capitalized exploration costs. The market cap (~$2.6B) likely far exceeds book equity, leading to a P/B ratio well above 1 (indicatively, end of 2024 book equity was around $250M, so P/B could be ~10x or more after the stock rise). This isn’t alarming for a pre-revenue growth company, but it highlights that investors are paying a premium not for assets-on-books, but for assets-in-ocean and future NPV.
• Ownership: Insiders and strategic holders own a significant chunk. For instance, insiders (founders, management) and Allseas had a large stake post-SPAC, and now Korea Zinc holds ~5% ^[368]. According to some filings, insiders (including Gerard Barron and board) collectively owned ~45% at one point ^[369] – though that may have changed after new issuance. The relatively concentrated ownership could mean aligned interests, but also means the float is somewhat reduced (volatility can be higher if float is small). No large institutional revenue from operations means the stock’s movements are mostly driven by news and retail/speculative activity rather than earnings.
• Analyst Estimates: As mentioned, the few analysts covering TMC forecast continued losses for the next couple of years. For example, H.C. Wainwright initiated coverage with a Buy and likely laid out a model where TMC might start generating revenue ~2027 and ramp up thereafter ^[370]. While exact figures aren’t public, one can guess that they project multi-billion annual revenue once at full production (10+ million tonnes nodules/year could yield ~$1-2B in metals per year at today’s prices). But any such estimates are highly speculative at this stage.
• Stock Price Volatility & Beta: TMC’s beta is relatively low (~0.2) per some sources ^[371] – this might be a quirk of calculation given its early trading history, or because in 2022-2023 it traded more like an idiosyncratic penny stock not correlated with the market. However, in practical terms, TMC’s stock is highly volatile in absolute terms (50-100% swings in a month have occurred). It does not closely follow broader indices or even commodity prices on a short-term basis; it trades on unique news. Investors should be prepared for this volatility. Stop-loss orders or position sizing might be prudent risk management given the wild moves.
• Short Interest: TMC did attract some short sellers (like Iceberg Research’s public short call). After the stock’s big run-up, it’s likely that short interest increased. A high short interest can create additional volatility (short squeezes or sharp drops if negative news hits). One should check the latest short interest percentage (for example, in mid-2025 some reports said TMC was on lists of stocks with large borrow fee increases ^[372]). If short interest is high (say >10% of float), any sudden positive news could trigger a squeeze, whereas sustained lack of progress could see shorts pressing their bet.

Bottom line: Traditional financial metrics for TMC are mostly not meaningful yet – it’s all about prospective value. The company’s financial health should be monitored via its cash burn, cash balance, and funding plans rather than revenue or EPS. In the near term, solvency is secure due to recent capital raises. The main financial question is how TMC will fund the transition from exploration to commercial production. This might involve project finance debt, more equity, strategic investments, or a combination.

One can think of TMC’s situation like a biotech in Phase 3 trials – burning cash, no revenue, but one huge asset (a drug or, in TMC’s case, a resource) that if approved could yield massive revenue. The risk for dilution is real: existing shareholders could be diluted if the company issues a lot more shares to raise construction capital. On the other hand, if they manage non-dilutive funding (e.g. government grants or a major partner footing capex in exchange for offtake), the financial upside to current equity holders would be higher.

Key Ratios Snapshot (Oct 2025):

(Note: Short interest estimate is illustrative; check latest NASDAQ data for current figures.)

This snapshot underscores that TMC’s valuation is entirely forward-looking. Traditional investors might balk at such a high market cap for a company years from revenue, but growth and speculative investors are valuing the option value of TMC’s resource.

In evaluating financial performance, one should track: capital expenditures (as pilot systems are built), R&D expense (environmental and engineering work), and general & administrative expense (which includes everything from staff to legal to PR given the advocacy needed). Unusually, a lot of TMC’s spending is on environmental studies and engaging regulators – a necessary cost of creating a new industry.

As we move into 2026, expect TMC’s financial story to revolve around project financing. If TMC announces a financing package (say a debt facility or a strategic investment of several hundred million), that will be a key financial milestone. Conversely, if cash starts to dwindle without such arrangements, the risk of stock dilution through equity raises will rise, which could pressure the share price.

Peer Comparison: TMC vs. Similar Stocks 🔎

The Metals Company is in a unique niche (deep-sea mining), but investors may compare it with other companies involved in battery metals and critical minerals. Here’s how TMC stacks up against a couple of peers in related industries:

Sources: Yahoo Finance, company filings, news reports ^{[385] [386] [387] [388]}.

Comparative Highlights:

• Industry Position: TMC is to deep-sea battery metals what MP Materials is to rare earth magnets and what Lithium Americas is to lithium – each is critical for the EV supply chain but focuses on different materials. MP and LAC are land-based projects; TMC is the only one trying to source from the ocean. All three benefit from the global push for electrification and have seen stock surges in 2025 due to investor enthusiasm and policy support.
• Operational Status: MP Materials is the most established – it produces rare earth concentrate from its Mountain Pass mine and is building a U.S. processing facility (MP even has revenue of ~$200M/year and a U.S. Department of Defense stake) ^[389]. Lithium Americas is in late-stage development – its Argentina lithium brine project started commissioning in 2023-24, and its flagship U.S. lithium clay project got final permits and funding (including GM and DOE investment) ^[390]. TMC is the furthest from production (still some 2 years behind LAC, which expects first U.S. lithium in 2026, and MP which is already producing). Thus, TMC’s risk is higher in terms of unproven operations.
• Market Valuation: Interestingly, TMC at ~$2.6B is valued higher than Lithium Americas (around $4B pre-government stake rumor, then spiked; currently perhaps similar to or a bit above TMC) and about one-fifth of MP’s valuation. MP’s ~$12B cap reflects it being the only game in town for U.S. rare earths, with actual revenue (though it trades at a very high multiple because it’s investing for growth). TMC’s valuation relative to LAC’s suggests the market sees their prospects as somewhat comparable, even though LAC is closer to cash flow. This could imply TMC is expensive relative to peers on a timeline basis, or conversely that if TMC clears permitting, it could warrant an even higher value given its resource size (for perspective, if TMC were producing $1B/year in EBITDA in the 2030s as its studies suggest possible, a $2.6B market cap might end up looking cheap).
• Funding & Partnerships: All three have strategic partners: TMC (Allseas, Korea Zinc), MP (Shenghe Resources from China historically; recently the U.S. DoD and factory partnerships), LAC (General Motors invested $650M; DOE loan). The trend is governments or industry players stepping in to back these critical minerals projects. TMC’s partnership profile is arguably still forming – it wouldn’t be surprising to see an automaker or another big company team up with TMC if it progresses (just as Tesla has teamed with nickel developers and GM with LAC). This peer context shows that being a critical mineral supplier in a friendly jurisdiction carries a premium and support.
• Risk Profile: Among these, MP is lowest risk (already mining, just expanding downstream processing; profitable operations albeit relying on one buyer currently, China). LAC is medium risk (construction risk, but lithium demand is very strong and partially derisked by big investments and off-takes). TMC is highest risk (new technology, new regulatory regime, no revenue). On the flip side, TMC’s potential reward (if successful) could be the highest because the resource is so large and it would open an entire new frontier. It’s also somewhat less “crowded” – there are dozens of lithium developers and several rare earth projects, but only a couple serious deep-sea mining contenders.
• Stock Performance Drivers: In 2025, all three stocks soared on policy news: TMC on Trump’s EO and NOAA moves ^[391], MP on the Pentagon stake and magnet supply chain push (MP was one of Q3’s top gainers, +100%+ YTD) ^[392], and LAC on U.S. government equity/loan deals (LAC jumped ~74% in one day on the 10% stake rumor ^[393]). This underlines that for critical mineral stocks, government actions are key catalysts. TMC fits right into this theme – its fortune may similarly rise or fall on how governments act.
• Investor Base: TMC’s investor base currently includes a lot of retail/speculative interest (e.g. high mentions on forums during spikes), whereas MP Materials has more institutional ownership (BlackRock, Vanguard, etc.) since it’s an NYSE mid-cap and has earnings. Lithium Americas also has substantial institutional holding and index inclusion. As TMC matures (if it does), one would expect more institutional investors to come in, especially if it transitions from story to reality. That could stabilize the stock in the long run – but for now, TMC is more sentiment-driven relative to those peers.
• Comparison with Nautilus Minerals: A special note – while not in the above table (since Nautilus is defunct), many compare TMC to Nautilus Minerals. Nautilus was a pioneer in seafloor massive sulfide (underwater copper-gold mining) off Papua New Guinea. It failed around 2019 after technical delays and funding shortfalls, leaving creditors and the Papua New Guinea government in the lurch. TMC’s CEO was an early investor in Nautilus ^[394], and the ghost of Nautilus is often cited as a cautionary tale for TMC. The big differences: Nautilus aimed at much more complex sulfide mining (undersea rock cutting at hydrothermal vents) and had less government backing. TMC’s nodules are arguably simpler to collect, and TMC has been more savvy in aligning with multiple governments. Nonetheless, the failure of Nautilus is a sobering peer comparison that TMC must consciously avoid repeating by not over-promising and by securing adequate financing.

In conclusion, compared to similar stocks, TMC offers a unique exposure – it’s the only way to invest in deep-sea mining on U.S. markets. It has outperformed many peers in 2025 due to its speculative appeal. But it also carries a higher risk profile. Investors might consider diversifying across the critical minerals space – for instance, pairing a high-risk bet like TMC with more established players like an MP (rare earth producer) or an Albemarle (major lithium producer) to balance risk. It’s also interesting that some ETFs or funds may start including companies like TMC if they focus on clean tech metals. For now, TMC remains a niche pick with a story that sets it apart from land-based mining peers.

Deep-Sea Mining and EV Metals: Industry Outlook 🌐

The broader industry context surrounding The Metals Company is crucial to understanding its prospects. TMC’s fate is intertwined with the outlook for deep-sea mining as a whole, as well as the supply-demand dynamics of critical minerals for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy.

Outlook for Deep-Sea Mining: The concept of mining the ocean floor for minerals has been around for decades (interest peaked in the 1970s, then faded, now resurging). As of 2025, we are at a pivotal juncture: will deep-sea mining go mainstream or not? On one hand, the need for minerals is pushing companies and some governments to seriously consider it. On the other hand, environmental and legal challenges are significant.

• The International Seabed Authority (ISA) has issued around 30 exploration licenses (to various nations’ sponsored entities, including TMC’s) ^[395]. However, it has not yet agreed on commercial mining regulations. After missing self-imposed deadlines in 2020 and 2023, the ISA as of July 2025 had no new timeline for a Mining Code ^[396]. This regulatory limbo creates uncertainty. The next ISA session in March 2026 will be closely watched. If the ISA were to approve a code and even approve TMC’s (or others’) exploitation applications, it would officially launch a new industry. Many expect at least some pilot mining contracts by 2026-2027, given the pressure from countries like Nauru (sponsor of TMC) and investors.
• However, as noted, opposition is strong. A growing coalition of countries (mostly those without direct stakes in mining and with strong environmental lobbies, like several EU states, Pacific islands, etc.) is advocating for at least a temporary moratorium on deep-sea mining until more science is done ^{[397] [398]}. Influential global NGOs (WWF, Greenpeace, etc.) are campaigning hard on this front, raising public awareness. At the ISA meetings, this makes consensus difficult. If a stalemate continues, it’s possible that no mining code is agreed for years, which would mean no ISA-sanctioned mining.
• Alternate paths: Because of ISA delays, countries are exploring alternatives. The U.S. path we discussed is one – the Trump admin’s April 2025 executive order basically says the U.S. will not wait for the ISA and will move forward under its own law ^{[399] [400]}. This unilateral approach is controversial internationally (China’s foreign ministry said the U.S. move “violates international law” ^[401]). We could see a split where a group of countries (U.S., maybe partners like UK, Japan, etc.) proceed outside ISA, while others refuse to recognize such mining. This could lead to geopolitical friction and even legal disputes in international courts. For TMC, this broadens possible avenues but also means the regulatory environment could be fragmented. The Financial Times called the U.S. move the most assertive step yet, raising fears ISA might lose legitimacy ^[402].
• Technological readiness: Industry-wide, the tech is nearly there. TMC and GSR have done pilot nodule collections; companies like Canada’s Impossible Metals are even working on AI-powered “pickers” to collect nodules one by one (to be more selective) ^[403]. For seafloor massive sulfides, Japan performed a successful pilot mining of vents in its waters in 2017; India and China have tested technologies too. The outlook is that technologically, commercial systems could be operational before 2030. Transocean’s involvement (largest offshore driller now interested in mining systems) and TechnipFMC’s backing of Loke Marine show heavy industry pivoting to enable this ^{[404] [405]}. This means if the political green light is given, multiple projects could rev up quite quickly using oil & gas know-how. That poses both competition for TMC and validation of concept.
• Environmental management: A key part of industry outlook is whether companies can prove they can mitigate harm. Over the next 1-2 years, results from ongoing studies will trickle in. For example, TMC’s monitoring of its 2022 test, as well as an independent EU-sponsored study (MiningImpact project) that was present during TMC’s test, will yield scientific papers. Additionally, other test mining (like India’s trial in 2024 in the Indian Ocean, or a Japan/South Korea trial) might happen, providing data. If these show manageable impacts (e.g. plumes don’t travel far, biodiversity impacts localized), it will bolster industry prospects. If they reveal more dire consequences (e.g. significant mortality or ecosystem function disruption over large areas), it could lead to stricter rules or bans. So the scientific findings in 2025-2026 are pivotal to the industry’s social license.

Critical Minerals & EV Materials Outlook: The other side of the coin is demand. The 2020s are experiencing an unprecedented surge in demand for battery materials due to the global energy transition:

• Electric Vehicles: EV sales are expected to grow from ~10 million in 2022 to 40-50 million by 2030 (some projections even higher). Each EV battery (for a long-range vehicle) contains around 6-12 kg of cobalt (if NMC chemistry), 30+ kg of nickel (in NMC batteries), 50+ kg of copper (wiring and motors), plus manganese in cathodes (for NMC or LMNO chemistries). This is creating upward pressure on these metal markets. Nickel, for instance, saw LME prices spike above $50k/ton in 2022 on supply fears (though pulled back as Indonesia ramped output). Cobalt prices fluctuate with DRC news. Copper is near historically high levels ($4/lb range) driven by not just EVs but grid and renewable build-out. The outlook is generally bullish on volume – even if each battery uses slightly less of certain metals (due to tech improvements), the sheer volume of batteries means total demand for Ni, Co, Cu will likely double or more by 2030. Even manganese, often overlooked, is rising in importance as companies look to high-manganese cathodes to reduce cobalt use (which ironically increases manganese use).
• Supply Shortfalls: Traditional mining faces challenges ramping up to meet this demand. New nickel sulfide discoveries are rare; more supply is coming from laterites (Indonesia, Philippines) which are environmentally damaging and require energy-intensive processing. Cobalt is almost entirely a byproduct of copper and nickel mining in the Congo and elsewhere – not easy to quickly scale, and fraught with ESG issues. Copper mines have long lead times and declining ore grades worldwide. In summary, many analysts forecast structural deficits in these metals in the late 2020s unless new sources come online. This is exactly the narrative deep-sea mining companies push: “We have a new source, just let us tap it.” If shortages manifest as expected, industry and governments may become more willing to give the nod to novel sources like nodules, viewing it as the lesser evil compared to supply crunches that could slow the energy transition.
• Alternative Technologies: The industry outlook also depends on whether alternative solutions reduce the need for deep-sea mining. These alternatives include: battery recycling (recover metals from end-of-life batteries), substitution (e.g. moving to LFP batteries that use no nickel or cobalt), and new mineral discoveries on land (like novel sources of nickel such as laterite HPAL projects or deep nickel-rich shales, etc.). By 2025, recycling is ramping up but will only supply a small fraction of needs until many EVs reach end-of-life in 10-15 years. LFP chemistry has gained traction in standard-range vehicles (especially in China), reducing cobalt demand, but high-performance vehicles still prefer nickel-rich chemistries for energy density, and the next-gen chemistries like LMR (Lithium Manganese Rich) still require lots of manganese (and some nickel). So, it’s likely cobalt demand growth might slow if LFP captures market share, but nickel and manganese demand will still be very strong; copper demand is virtually guaranteed with all the electrification (regardless of battery type, you need copper wiring and motors). Thus, TMC’s metals basket remains highly relevant in most EV scenarios.
• Pricing Environment: For an emerging miner like TMC, a supportive pricing environment around first production is critical. Current medium-term forecasts for 2027-2030 often predict high prices: Nickel potentially staying in the $20k-30k/ton range (especially if Indonesia’s export quotas or an OPEC-like cartel for nickel forms), Cobalt possibly in the $50k-70k/ton range if supply struggles, Copper arguably could hit record highs ($5-6+/lb) due to underinvestment in new mines, etc. If TMC enters production in a bull market for metals, its financial metrics could instantly look very attractive, helping justify the project. Conversely, if say there’s an economic downturn or oversupply in one metal by 2027 (for instance, if Indonesia floods the nickel market or if cobalt gets thrifting tech reducing use), that could tighten margins. Diversification of four metals provides some hedge – if one metal underperforms, the others might outperform (e.g., if cobalt is in oversupply but copper is extremely high, it balances out).
• Geopolitics and Trade: Another facet – China currently dominates processing of these minerals (Nickel, Cobalt refining, etc.). The West is pouring billions into building domestic supply chains (e.g., U.S. Inflation Reduction Act incentives for sourcing non-Chinese minerals). Deep-sea nodules, if processed domestically, fit well because they are not extracted from any country (the ISA regime would make them an internationally shared resource, but if the U.S. does it unilaterally, they’d be considered American-sourced perhaps). There’s a big opportunity for countries like the U.S. to secure supply from “neutral” zones to reduce China’s chokehold. This strategic necessity might override some environmental hesitations. One could foresee, for example, the U.S. or Quad countries (U.S., Japan, Australia, India) collaborating on deep-sea mining to supply themselves rather than relying on China or Congo.
• Timeline Alignment: The broader outlook for deep-sea mining seems to align with TMC’s timeline. The late 2020s appear to be when deep-sea mining could commence (TMC targeting 2027, others likely around 2027-2030). By that time, the gap between metal demand and supply could be acute. It’s a bit of a race: will deep-sea mining be ready in time to alleviate shortages? If yes, the industry could take off rapidly. If no (due to regulatory halts), then countries might double-down on alternative sources or suffer shortages. For investors, if they believe the metal supercycle narrative and that deep-sea mining will ultimately be allowed to proceed (with careful conditions), then the late 2020s could see these companies become very valuable.

In summary, the industry context is cautiously favorable for TMC: Demand tailwinds are strong and getting stronger, and there’s significant momentum among certain governments and companies to pioneer deep-sea mining. The main headwinds are regulatory delays and environmental opposition, which are real and could derail or delay the whole sector.

The next few years will likely determine whether deep-sea mining becomes a viable part of the world’s mineral supply. If it does, TMC is positioned to be one of, if not the, leader in that space (with all the first-mover perks and learning curve benefits). If it doesn’t, TMC’s story could end like Nautilus – a cautionary tale of overreach. The stakes for the industry are high, both economically and environmentally. Investors in TMC should keep a close watch on global developments: ISA rulings, national policies (like the U.S. executive orders or EU stances), as well as how quickly EV/battery companies start to sweat about raw material shortages. Those will all be signals of where this ship is heading.

Risks and Opportunities for Investors 🎯

To wrap up, what are the key risks and potential rewards for someone considering an investment in The Metals Company at this point (October 2025)? It’s worth synthesizing the earlier sections into the main pros and cons specifically from an investor’s perspective:

Investment Opportunities / Bull Case:

• Enormous Upside if Successful: TMC offers a unique high-upside bet on a new source of critical minerals. If the company achieves commercial production by 2027-2028 as planned, it could generate hundreds of millions in annual EBITDA (the PFS indicates ~$2B EBITDA per year at steady state for full-scale operations ^[406]). For context, a company with $2B EBITDA might command a market value in the tens of billions depending on multiples, far above TMC’s current ~$2.6B. In a blue-sky scenario, early shareholders could see multi-bagger returns by 2030. Essentially, TMC is somewhat akin to owning a call option on a $20 trillion resource ^[407] – even a small realization of that value could be huge for equity holders.
• First-Mover in a Strategic Industry: If deep-sea mining gets going, TMC is very well placed to capture a significant share of the “first wave” of projects. It could secure the best partner deals, best customers, and best talent, and potentially expand into other license areas or minerals (TMC’s CEO has hinted they could look at crusts or other resources in time). Being first also means TMC can help shape regulations in a favorable way. Investors bullish on the long-term necessity of deep-sea mining (to feed the EV revolution) might view TMC as a must-have position, the way one would view a company that pioneered a new technology ahead of others.
• Strong Tailwinds from EV and Policy: As detailed, macro trends in EV adoption and geopolitical strategy are aligning in TMC’s favor. The more the West emphasizes “critical mineral independence”, the more likely TMC will find support (financial, political). Already we see unprecedented steps like the U.S. government directly investing in mining companies (MP, LAC) and writing executive orders to expedite projects like TMC ^[408]. Investors effectively have governments working for them in this case, trying to de-risk and facilitate the business. Such tailwinds could propel the stock higher if, for example, a news hits that “U.S. Department of Energy signs MOU to potentially buy X tons of nodules per year from TMC once produced” – that kind of headline is not outlandish given what’s happened with other companies.
• Potential M&A or Buyout: If TMC continues to prove itself, it could become an acquisition target. Large mining companies that initially sat on the sidelines might decide it’s easier to buy TMC than to build their own deep-sea division from scratch. For instance, one could imagine a scenario where a BHP or a Rio Tinto (both of which have expressed interest in sustainable mining solutions) might make a strategic investment or outright bid if TMC’s project is permitted. Likewise, an oil & gas major transitioning to “energy supply” might see deep-sea mining as an adjacent opportunity (they have offshore expertise). For investors, any hint of such interest could significantly boost the stock (takeover speculation). Already we saw some moves: e.g., Lockheed flirting with the idea of undersea mining signals the big boys are circling ^{[409] [410]}.
• Portfolio Diversification in Critical Minerals: TMC provides exposure to four key metals in one stock. For an investor looking to invest in the EV raw materials theme, TMC offers a “bundle”: nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese. Acquiring exposure to all four individually would mean buying multiple different mining stocks or metal ETFs. With TMC, if it works, you get a slice of each market. This diversification of metal revenue could potentially smooth out volatility in commodity cycles (one metal’s price up, another down, etc.). Thus, some might see TMC as a unique way to play the overall electrification commodity boom, with a single equity.

Investment Risks / Bear Case:

• Binary Outcome Risk: TMC is largely a binary bet – either it eventually mines nodules and generates massive cash flows, or it fails to get there and the stock could implode. There is a very real possibility of a total loss of investment if the project gets derailed. For example, if a moratorium is implemented and no mining is allowed for a decade, TMC’s value would evaporate (its licenses have renewal periods, investor patience would run out). The company doesn’t have other lines of business to fall back on. So investors must be comfortable with a high-risk, speculative position.
• Execution Delays and Dilution: Even if one believes TMC will eventually succeed, the timeline could be much longer than expected. Any delays in permitting (very possible) or technical hurdles could push first revenue from 2027 to 2030 or beyond. The longer it takes, the more money TMC will burn and likely the more shares it will need to issue to stay afloat. Dilution is a near-certainty – the only question is how much. If the company issues, say, another 100 million shares over the next few years to raise capital, current shareholders’ stake will be diluted. If the stock price is high while issuing, that’s manageable; if the stock slumps and they have to issue at low prices, it’s painful. Many junior miners struggle with this (shares outstanding ballooning over time). TMC already has ~380 million shares after the SPAC and issuances; that could climb. Investors face the risk that by the time the company makes money, their slice of the pie is smaller.
• Regulatory Shut-down or Restrictions: The worst-case regulatory scenario is an outright ban or indefinite pause on deep-sea mining. But even short of that, there could be onerous restrictions: for example, the ISA could approve mining but require such slow production rates or expensive monitoring that it kills profitability. Or lawsuits (perhaps by environmental groups or even fishing interests) could tie up operations in court. For instance, one can imagine lawsuits under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if NOAA grants a permit – litigants might argue the Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate, causing delays. These legal battles could drag on for years, during which TMC might run out of cash. This risk is hard to quantify but very real.
• Commodity Price and Market Adoption Risks: While demand is likely robust, there’s always the chance that by the late 2020s, markets have adjusted in other ways – e.g., if battery tech shifts to chemistries not using TMC’s metals (in a highly optimistic scenario for LFP or sodium-ion, for example). If so, TMC could find that it finally produces nodules but the metals are less needed and prices are lower than expected. Additionally, if many deep-sea projects all come online around the same time (say TMC, plus countries like China starting mining, etc.), they could collectively flood the market and depress prices of nickel/cobalt (a classic resource oversupply boom/bust). Commodities are cyclical; catching a down cycle at start of production would hurt. Investors must accept that even if TMC technically succeeds, market forces might spoil the party.
• Environmental Accidents or Liabilities: If TMC does get to operations, any major environmental incident – e.g., an unexpected mass kill of marine life, an oil-spill-like event (like a pipe rupture causing pollution), or even just alarming scientific findings (like mining causing significant decrease in ocean oxygen or something dire) – could not only halt TMC but damage the entire industry’s reputation. TMC could face liability or be forced to halt and retrofit equipment, etc. Mining is never without accident risk, and doing it in the deep ocean adds complexity (though nodules are not toxic per se, but one could imagine vessel fuel spills or equipment loss). An accident would tank the stock and create huge setbacks.
• Liquidity and Market Volatility: On a more mundane note, TMC’s stock is quite volatile and not extremely liquid for large trades (not as liquid as, say, a large-cap). This means an investor could suffer from wide bid-ask spreads or sharp moves on any given day. It’s not a “widows and orphans” stock – one should use limit orders and be prepared for potentially sudden drops (the stock fell ~50% in a matter of days in past on news). The psychological risk is real: can you hold on through gut-wrenching volatility? Not everyone can, and selling at the wrong time could lock in losses.

Risk Mitigation Thoughts: For those interested in TMC but aware of the risks, some strategies could be:

• Position Sizing: Only allocate a small portion of a portfolio to TMC – an amount one can afford to lose without jeopardizing financial goals. Think of it as a venture-capital style bet.
• Long-Term Horizon: Be prepared to hold for many years. If one believes in the mission, short-term swings shouldn’t deter, but that means tying up capital possibly for a long time.
• Monitoring Milestones: Keep track of key milestones (ISA decisions, NOAA permit, any pilot mining results, financing events). If certain milestones fail to materialize, it might be a signal to reassess.
• Consider Options: If available, sometimes using call options (long-dated LEAPs) can cap the downside to the premium paid while keeping upside exposure. The option market for TMC may not be very liquid, though.

In conclusion, investing in The Metals Company is high-risk, high-reward. The bull case envisions TMC as a cornerstone supplier of critical metals in the green revolution, delivering outsized returns. The bear case sees it as an overhyped venture that could stumble on either politics or practicalities, possibly ending in bankruptcy or perpetual dormancy.

Prudent investors will weigh these outcomes. It may not be an “all or nothing” – perhaps TMC finds a partial path (e.g., starts smaller-scale production under heavy monitoring, etc.). But even that partial success could warrant current valuations or more.

Given the current information (as of Oct 2025), the stock’s strong performance YTD indicates many are betting on the positive scenario. Yet, as objective analysts, we must note that much of TMC’s valuation is speculative; real revenues are still at least two years away, and a lot can change in the interim.

Investors should only consider TMC if they have a high risk tolerance and are interested in the speculative growth category. It’s not a traditional mining stock with steady cash flows – it’s more akin to a pre-revenue tech startup, but in mining.

Conclusion

The Metals Company represents a bold bet on the future of mining – shifting from land to the deep ocean to obtain the raw materials of the 21st-century economy. In 2025, the stock has captured the imagination of markets with its dramatic ascent, reflecting both excitement about its promise and speculation fueled by favorable news. TMC’s polymetallic nodule venture could either revolutionize sustainable metal supply for EVs or underscore the limits society places on resource extraction.

At this juncture (Q4 2025), TMC offers a compelling story: a company sitting on an immense “treasure chest” of EV metals, with a viable (if challenging) plan to retrieve it, backed by some powerful allies, riding a wave of demand. Its stock performance has rewarded early believers, but also introduced significant volatility and risk.

For investors, the key is to stay informed and nimble:

• Watch the regulatory developments (ISA, NOAA) like a hawk – these will likely make or break the investment.
• Keep an eye on how TMC manages its cash and whether it brings new partners on board – that will tell you how well it can navigate the expensive road to production.
• Track the sentiment in broader markets about deep-sea mining – are more people warming up to it, or is opposition growing? That social license factor could hit the stock suddenly if, say, a major country enacts a ban or a major fund announces it won’t invest in deep-sea mining on ESG grounds.
• And don’t forget the metal prices – they remain the fundamental driver of long-term profitability; TMC is levered to the “green metals” narrative, which for now is bullish.

In summary, The Metals Company is a high-stakes play. It sits at the intersection of some of the most critical themes of our time: climate change and the electrification of everything, the quest for sustainability, and even geopolitical competition. This small company in Vancouver could, in a few years, be harvesting the bottom of the Pacific to power millions of Teslas – or it could be a footnote in the history of mining.

Investors must weigh their conviction in TMC’s vision against their tolerance for uncertainty. As of October 2025, the pieces are falling into place for TMC, but the puzzle is not finished yet.

For those who believe in the “deep-sea treasure” narrative, TMC offers a chance to get in early on what could be a transformative new industry. For those who see “fool’s gold” in these rocks, the current lofty valuation and unresolved risks may be a sign to stay away.

Either way, The Metals Company will be a fascinating story to watch as it navigates uncharted waters – literally and figuratively – in the months and years ahead.

Disclosure: This analysis is for informational purposes and reflects the situation as of October 2025. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consider their risk appetite. The author has no position in TMC at the time of writing.

Sources: Key information and quotes in this report were cited from credible sources including company press releases, financial filings, news articles (Yahoo Finance, Motley Fool, Financial Times, OilPrice.com), market data providers, and industry reports ^{[411] [412] [413] [414] [415]}, among others, to ensure accuracy and currency of the analysis.

References

1. oilprice.com, 2. finance.yahoo.com, 3. investors.metals.co, 4. investors.metals.co, 5. www.webull.com, 6. investors.metals.co, 7. investors.metals.co, 8. www.webull.com, 9. investors.metals.co, 10. investors.metals.co, 11. investors.metals.co, 12. investors.metals.co, 13. www.marketbeat.com, 14. www.marketbeat.com, 15. oilprice.com, 16. oilprice.com, 17. www.webull.com, 18. www.webull.com, 19. investors.metals.co, 20. www.nasdaq.com, 21. www.nasdaq.com, 22. oilprice.com, 23. metals.co, 24. investors.metals.co, 25. metals.co, 26. investors.metals.co, 27. investors.metals.co, 28. investors.metals.co, 29. metals.co, 30. investors.metals.co, 31. investors.metals.co, 32. www.webull.com, 33. metals.co, 34. investors.metals.co, 35. investors.metals.co, 36. deepseamining.ac, 37. investors.metals.co, 38. investors.metals.co, 39. investors.metals.co, 40. investors.metals.co, 41. investors.metals.co, 42. oilprice.com, 43. oilprice.com, 44. oilprice.com, 45. oilprice.com, 46. oilprice.com, 47. investors.metals.co, 48. investors.metals.co, 49. investors.metals.co, 50. investors.metals.co, 51. www.webull.com, 52. www.webull.com, 53. investors.metals.co, 54. investors.metals.co, 55. investors.metals.co, 56. www.webull.com, 57. www.webull.com, 58. www.webull.com, 59. www.marketbeat.com, 60. www.marketbeat.com, 61. www.marketbeat.com, 62. www.marketbeat.com, 63. finance.yahoo.com, 64. oilprice.com, 65. oilprice.com, 66. oilprice.com, 67. www.webull.com, 68. investors.metals.co, 69. www.marketbeat.com, 70. oilprice.com, 71. oilprice.com, 72. oilprice.com, 73. oilprice.com, 74. markets.financialcontent.com, 75. investors.metals.co, 76. investors.metals.co, 77. investors.metals.co, 78. investors.metals.co, 79. investors.metals.co, 80. investors.metals.co, 81. investors.metals.co, 82. www.webull.com, 83. investors.metals.co, 84. investors.metals.co, 85. investors.metals.co, 86. investors.metals.co, 87. investors.metals.co, 88. investors.metals.co, 89. investors.metals.co, 90. investors.metals.co, 91. investors.metals.co, 92. investors.metals.co, 93. investors.metals.co, 94. investors.metals.co, 95. investors.metals.co, 96. investors.metals.co, 97. www.nasdaq.com, 98. www.nasdaq.com, 99. www.nasdaq.com, 100. investors.metals.co, 101. deepseamining.ac, 102. investors.metals.co, 103. metals.co, 104. investors.metals.co, 105. investors.metals.co, 106. investors.metals.co, 107. investors.metals.co, 108. metals.co, 109. metals.co, 110. metals.co, 111. investors.metals.co, 112. investors.metals.co, 113. investors.metals.co, 114. investors.metals.co, 115. investors.metals.co, 116. metals.co, 117. investors.metals.co, 118. investors.metals.co, 119. deepseamining.ac, 120. deepseamining.ac, 121. investors.metals.co, 122. investors.metals.co, 123. oilprice.com, 124. www.nasdaq.com, 125. investors.metals.co, 126. investors.metals.co, 127. investors.metals.co, 128. investors.metals.co, 129. deepseamining.ac, 130. oilprice.com, 131. markets.financialcontent.com, 132. markets.financialcontent.com, 133. oilprice.com, 134. investors.metals.co, 135. investors.metals.co, 136. investors.metals.co, 137. www.nasdaq.com, 138. www.nasdaq.com, 139. www.nasdaq.com, 140. www.theinvadingsea.com, 141. deepseamining.ac, 142. deepseamining.ac, 143. deepseamining.ac, 144. oilprice.com, 145. oilprice.com, 146. investors.metals.co, 147. investors.metals.co, 148. www.tipranks.com, 149. www.nasdaq.com, 150. investors.metals.co, 151. investors.metals.co, 152. investors.metals.co, 153. investors.metals.co, 154. investors.metals.co, 155. investors.metals.co, 156. investors.metals.co, 157. investors.metals.co, 158. www.webull.com, 159. finance.yahoo.com, 160. finance.yahoo.com, 161. investors.metals.co, 162. www.stocktitan.net, 163. www.tipranks.com, 164. www.wallstrank.com, 165. www.tipranks.com, 166. www.marketbeat.com, 167. finance.yahoo.com, 168. oilprice.com, 169. investors.metals.co, 170. www.marketbeat.com, 171. www.marketbeat.com, 172. www.stocktitan.net, 173. finance.yahoo.com, 174. oilprice.com, 175. macrotrends.net, 176. markets.financialcontent.com, 177. markets.financialcontent.com, 178. oilprice.com, 179. macrotrends.net, 180. markets.financialcontent.com, 181. markets.financialcontent.com, 182. simplywall.st, 183. markets.financialcontent.com, 184. oilprice.com, 185. markets.financialcontent.com, 186. markets.financialcontent.com, 187. iceberg-research.com, 188. www.nasdaq.com, 189. investors.metals.co, 190. www.nasdaq.com, 191. www.nasdaq.com, 192. www.nasdaq.com, 193. www.nasdaq.com, 194. www.nasdaq.com, 195. www.nasdaq.com, 196. deepseamining.ac, 197. deepseamining.ac, 198. deepseamining.ac, 199. investors.metals.co, 200. www.webull.com, 201. oilprice.com, 202. www.nasdaq.com, 203. www.nasdaq.com, 204. www.webull.com, 205. investors.metals.co, 206. investors.metals.co, 207. oilprice.com, 208. oilprice.com, 209. oilprice.com, 210. finance.yahoo.com, 211. investors.metals.co, 212. investors.metals.co, 213. www.webull.com, 214. investors.metals.co, 215. investors.metals.co, 216. www.webull.com, 217. investors.metals.co, 218. investors.metals.co, 219. investors.metals.co, 220. investors.metals.co, 221. www.marketbeat.com, 222. www.marketbeat.com, 223. oilprice.com, 224. oilprice.com, 225. www.webull.com, 226. www.webull.com, 227. investors.metals.co, 228. www.nasdaq.com, 229. www.nasdaq.com, 230. oilprice.com, 231. metals.co, 232. investors.metals.co, 233. metals.co, 234. investors.metals.co, 235. investors.metals.co, 236. investors.metals.co, 237. metals.co, 238. investors.metals.co, 239. investors.metals.co, 240. www.webull.com, 241. metals.co, 242. investors.metals.co, 243. deepseamining.ac, 244. investors.metals.co, 245. investors.metals.co, 246. investors.metals.co, 247. investors.metals.co, 248. investors.metals.co, 249. oilprice.com, 250. oilprice.com, 251. oilprice.com, 252. oilprice.com, 253. oilprice.com, 254. investors.metals.co, 255. investors.metals.co, 256. investors.metals.co, 257. investors.metals.co, 258. www.webull.com, 259. www.webull.com, 260. investors.metals.co, 261. investors.metals.co, 262. investors.metals.co, 263. www.webull.com, 264. www.webull.com, 265. www.webull.com, 266. www.marketbeat.com, 267. www.marketbeat.com, 268. www.marketbeat.com, 269. www.marketbeat.com, 270. finance.yahoo.com, 271. oilprice.com, 272. oilprice.com, 273. oilprice.com, 274. www.webull.com, 275. investors.metals.co, 276. www.marketbeat.com, 277. oilprice.com, 278. oilprice.com, 279. oilprice.com, 280. oilprice.com, 281. markets.financialcontent.com, 282. investors.metals.co, 283. investors.metals.co, 284. investors.metals.co, 285. investors.metals.co, 286. investors.metals.co, 287. investors.metals.co, 288. investors.metals.co, 289. www.webull.com, 290. investors.metals.co, 291. investors.metals.co, 292. investors.metals.co, 293. investors.metals.co, 294. investors.metals.co, 295. investors.metals.co, 296. investors.metals.co, 297. investors.metals.co, 298. investors.metals.co, 299. investors.metals.co, 300. investors.metals.co, 301. investors.metals.co, 302. investors.metals.co, 303. investors.metals.co, 304. www.nasdaq.com, 305. www.nasdaq.com, 306. www.nasdaq.com, 307. investors.metals.co, 308. deepseamining.ac, 309. investors.metals.co, 310. metals.co, 311. investors.metals.co, 312. investors.metals.co, 313. investors.metals.co, 314. investors.metals.co, 315. metals.co, 316. metals.co, 317. metals.co, 318. investors.metals.co, 319. investors.metals.co, 320. investors.metals.co, 321. investors.metals.co, 322. investors.metals.co, 323. metals.co, 324. investors.metals.co, 325. investors.metals.co, 326. deepseamining.ac, 327. deepseamining.ac, 328. investors.metals.co, 329. investors.metals.co, 330. oilprice.com, 331. www.nasdaq.com, 332. investors.metals.co, 333. investors.metals.co, 334. investors.metals.co, 335. investors.metals.co, 336. deepseamining.ac, 337. oilprice.com, 338. markets.financialcontent.com, 339. markets.financialcontent.com, 340. oilprice.com, 341. investors.metals.co, 342. investors.metals.co, 343. investors.metals.co, 344. www.nasdaq.com, 345. www.nasdaq.com, 346. www.nasdaq.com, 347. www.theinvadingsea.com, 348. deepseamining.ac, 349. deepseamining.ac, 350. deepseamining.ac, 351. oilprice.com, 352. oilprice.com, 353. investors.metals.co, 354. investors.metals.co, 355. www.tipranks.com, 356. www.nasdaq.com, 357. investors.metals.co, 358. investors.metals.co, 359. investors.metals.co, 360. investors.metals.co, 361. investors.metals.co, 362. investors.metals.co, 363. investors.metals.co, 364. investors.metals.co, 365. www.webull.com, 366. finance.yahoo.com, 367. finance.yahoo.com, 368. investors.metals.co, 369. www.stocktitan.net, 370. www.tipranks.com, 371. www.wallstrank.com, 372. www.tipranks.com, 373. www.marketbeat.com, 374. finance.yahoo.com, 375. oilprice.com, 376. investors.metals.co, 377. www.marketbeat.com, 378. www.marketbeat.com, 379. www.stocktitan.net, 380. finance.yahoo.com, 381. oilprice.com, 382. macrotrends.net, 383. markets.financialcontent.com, 384. markets.financialcontent.com, 385. oilprice.com, 386. macrotrends.net, 387. markets.financialcontent.com, 388. markets.financialcontent.com, 389. simplywall.st, 390. markets.financialcontent.com, 391. oilprice.com, 392. markets.financialcontent.com, 393. markets.financialcontent.com, 394. iceberg-research.com, 395. www.nasdaq.com, 396. investors.metals.co, 397. www.nasdaq.com, 398. www.nasdaq.com, 399. www.nasdaq.com, 400. www.nasdaq.com, 401. www.nasdaq.com, 402. www.nasdaq.com, 403. deepseamining.ac, 404. deepseamining.ac, 405. deepseamining.ac, 406. investors.metals.co, 407. www.webull.com, 408. oilprice.com, 409. www.nasdaq.com, 410. www.nasdaq.com, 411. www.webull.com, 412. investors.metals.co, 413. investors.metals.co, 414. oilprice.com, 415. oilprice.com