- Spectacular Stock Surge: TMC’s share price has skyrocketed over 400% in 2025 (and roughly 450% year-on-year) as of early October, recently trading around the high-$7 to $8 range [1]. The market cap exploded to ~$3–4 billion (up nearly 1000% from a year ago) [2], making TMC one of 2025’s top-performing stocks.
- Volatile Rally & Latest Spike: The stock has shown extreme volatility, with high trading volumes and multi-day runs. It jumped ~15% on October 7, 2025 alone, hitting an intraday high above $9 [3], amid bullish sentiment for critical metals. TMC climbed ~19% in September (contributing to a 560% YTD gain by end of Q3 [4]) and extended those gains into October on optimism around deep-sea mining deals and U.S. support.
- Pre-Revenue with Big Losses: The Metals Company has no revenue yet and is burning cash developing its seabed resources. It reported a $74.3 million net loss in Q2 2025 [5] and has accumulated losses as it invests in pilot mining and studies. The company held $115.8 million in cash as of June 30, 2025 [6] – enough runway into 2027 at current burn rates – but will likely need additional funding before achieving production.
- Funding and Backing: Despite zero revenue, TMC secured major funding from strategic investors in 2025. Notably, Korea Zinc invested $85.2 million for ~5% equity at $4.34/share [7], and a group led by Allseas provided $37 million at $3.00/share in a financing round [8]. These cash infusions, along with outstanding warrants, bolster TMC’s balance sheet and signal industry confidence, giving it an estimated two-year operating cash cushion [9].
- Deep-Sea Mining Breakthroughs: TMC is positioning itself as a pioneer in deep-sea minerals for EV batteries. In 2025 it declared the world’s first-ever deep-sea mineral reserves – 51 million tonnes of polymetallic nodules in its Pacific license area – and published economic studies estimating a massive $23.6 billion combined NPV for its projects [10] [11]. The company aims to start commercial production by Q4 2027if permits are secured [12], potentially yielding tens of thousands of tonnes of nickel, manganese, copper, and cobalt annually to supply the clean energy transition.
- Regulatory & ESG Crosscurrents: Regulatory uncertainty and environmental controversy loom large. The UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA) has not finalized a Mining Code in 2025, delaying any international mining licenses [13]. Meanwhile, 37 countries (and counting) support a moratorium on seabed mining due to ecological risks [14]. NGOs and scientists warn of “irreversible” harm to deep-ocean ecosystems if mining proceeds [15]. TMC’s fate hinges on navigating these political and ESG headwinds, even as the U.S. government under President Trump signals support – including an April 2025 executive order promoting domestic seabed mining and critical metal stockpiling [16].
- Analysts Divided on Future: Wall Street’s outlook on TMC is mixed. The consensus rating is essentially “Hold” with a wide range of price targets (about $7.30 on average – roughly where the stock trades – from $3.75 up to $11) [17]. Bulls like Wedbush (which upgraded TMC to Outperform with an $11 target) argue TMC has a first-mover advantage and will benefit from strong U.S. government backing for critical minerals [18] [19]. Bears (including short-seller Iceberg Research) counter that the venture is overhyped – pointing out zero revenue, unproven technology, shifting EV battery trends, and unresolved permitting as fundamental risks [20] [21]. Upcoming catalysts include the next earnings update (scheduled Nov 13, 2025 [22]) and any regulatory decisions, which could sway the outlook dramatically.
TMC Stock Skyrockets in 2025: Huge Gains and Wild Swings
Few stocks have seen a ride as dramatic as TMC the metals company Inc. in 2025. The deep-sea mining startup’s share price has surged by hundreds of percent year-to-date, making it one of the year’s standout performers in the market. At the start of 2025, TMC was essentially a penny stock – it traded under $2 in late 2024 – but by early October 2025 it was changing hands for around $8–9 per share, an over 400% increase since January [23]. In fact, by the end of Q3 2025 TMC had climbed roughly 560% for the year [24], and it continued climbing into Q4. This incredible rally has inflated TMC’s market capitalization from just a few hundred million dollars to about $3–4 billion. As of October 7, 2025, its market cap was estimated around $3.7 billion, up a staggering ~1,000% year-over-year [25] – a reflection of how quickly investor expectations have grown for this speculative venture.
Such outsized gains have come with high volatility. TMC’s stock often moves in double-digit percentages on a single day, and it has experienced sudden spikes and sharp pullbacks. For instance, in late September the stock rallied for several consecutive sessions, gaining over 30% in roughly two weeks [26]. It then entered October with strong momentum. Notably, on October 7, 2025, TMC spiked over 15% intraday, reaching as high as $9.09 before closing around $8.88 [27]. Volume that day swelled to 16.8 million shares, several times above average, signaling intense trading interest. The October 7 jump continued a four-day winning streak and marked a fresh 52-week high for the stock, which had traded as low as ~$0.72 at its 52-week low [28].
This dizzying rally has vastly outpaced the broader market. (For context, the S&P 500’s total return over the same year-to-date period was on the order of tens of percent, not hundreds.) It appears investors are speculating on TMC as a high-upside play tied to the electric vehicle (EV) metals boom. However, the volatility cuts both ways. Earlier in the summer, after hitting previous highs around the $7–8 range, TMC saw a 35% pullback in late July when the company’s hefty Q2 loss reminded the market of its challenges [29]. Swings like these underscore that TMC trades more on future hopes and news headlines than on current fundamentals – a point to bear in mind for anyone watching the stock.
Early October Rally and Recent Trading Activity
The surge on October 7, 2025 was particularly eye-catching, capping off several days of upward movement. What drove TMC’s latest spike? There was no company-issued news or earnings release that day, but broader sector news and market dynamics likely played a role. Critical minerals and mining stocks were in focus that week after an extraordinary development: on the same day, the U.S. government announced it would take a 10% stake in Trilogy Metals, a mining firm focused on Alaskan copper [30]. That unprecedented move – part of a push to secure domestic sources of strategic metals – sent Trilogy’s stock soaring and signaled strong U.S. commitment to mining projects. It’s plausible that TMC, as a fellow U.S.-listed company tied to critical minerals, got a sentiment boost in sympathy. Traders may have reasoned that if the government is willing to directly back a conventional miner, a deep-sea minerals company like TMC could also benefit from the nation’s resource-security agenda.
In addition, investor enthusiasm for deep-sea mining has been building in recent weeks, providing a favorable backdrop. In mid-September 2025, India signed a 15-year deep-sea mining exploration contract with the International Seabed Authority (ISA) – a notable commitment by a major economy to explore seabed resources [31]. While that deal concerns polymetallic sulphides in the Indian Ocean (a different resource than TMC’s Pacific nodules), it underscored growing global interest in undersea minerals. Around the same time, more speculative buzz was fueled by analyst commentary and end-of-quarter trading. A Motley Fool article noted TMC’s stock “soared almost 19% in September,” contributing to a stunning year-to-date climb (over 560% by late September) [32]. Such coverage likely attracted momentum traders and “window dressing” by some funds – i.e. adding high-flyers like TMC to portfolios at quarter-end.
By early October, TMC had a full head of steam, and the October 7 pop may simply reflect a culmination of positive sentiment and traders chasing the trend. The stock’s ability to break through previous highs (topping its prior 52-week peak around ~$8.63 [33]) could also have triggered technical buying and short covering. It’s worth noting that TMC has been a popular target for both speculators and short sellers, given its binary risk/reward profile. As of October, a substantial number of shares remained sold short (betting on a decline), so rapid price spikes can force shorts to buy back shares, adding fuel to rallies.
However, what goes up fast can come down fast. The lack of fundamental news underpinning TMC’s early October rally means the stock could just as easily reverse course on a shift in sentiment. Indeed, TMC’s history in 2025 shows sharp pullbacks often followed big run-ups. For example, after spiking in mid-July (when it first hit the $7–8 range on optimism around a major strategic investment), the stock fell by roughly one-third in the ensuing weeks [34]. Traders should be prepared for continued volatility. At current prices, TMC’s valuation already bakes in a lot of future success, so any hiccup – whether a delay in regulations, an environmental controversy, or simply profit-taking – could spark a sudden selloff. Recent technical indicators flashed some caution as well; by October 6, TMC’s 14-day Relative Strength Index (RSI) was above 80, an “extremely overbought” level [35]. While a high RSI on a breakout stock doesn’t guarantee a downturn (and in TMC’s case, breaking its downtrend may reduce the chance of an immediate correction [36]), it does highlight how exuberant the buying has been.
No Revenue (Yet) and Ongoing Losses: Inside TMC’s Financials
Behind the stock frenzy, The Metals Company’s financials reflect a typical early-stage resource company – high costs, no revenues, and reliance on investor funding. TMC is still in the exploration and development phase of its deep-sea mining project and has not commenced commercial mining, so it has reported zero revenue to date. This means all operating expenses flow straight to the bottom line as losses. In the most recent quarter reported (Q2 2025), TMC’s net loss was $74.3 million [37], or about $0.20 per share. The loss was large because the company is financing pilot mining tests, environmental studies, engineering, and administrative overhead without any income yet. For the first half of 2025, cumulative losses were on the order of ~$120 million (when combining Q1 and Q2), illustrating the cash burn involved in TMC’s ambitious plans.
On the bright side, TMC is relatively well-capitalized for the near term – thanks to some big fundraising moves this year. As of June 30, 2025, the company held $115.8 million in cash on the balance sheet [38]. Its cash “used in operations” was $10.6 million in Q2 [39], which suggests a quarterly burn rate in the $10–15 million range. At that pace, TMC’s cash on hand could fund roughly 8–10 quarters of operation – essentially giving it runway into 2027 before it would need to raise more money [40]. Not coincidentally, 2027 is when the company hopes to start generating revenue (more on the timeline below). However, it’s important to note that as TMC moves from testing to actual project development, costs could increase (for example, building full-scale mining vessels or processing facilities would be very capital-intensive). So, investors shouldn’t assume TMC can reach production without additional financing. The company will likely seek more capital in late 2025 or 2026, via equity issuance, strategic partnerships, or debt, to fund the transition from pilot to commercial mining. Indeed, further dilution is a key risk – current shareholders have already been diluted by funding rounds this year, and more shares could be issued in the future.
2025 has been a pivotal year for TMC’s funding. The company managed to attract significant investments from strategic partners, validating its project to some extent. In May 2025, TMC raised $37 million in a registered direct offering led by prominent investors including Allseas Group S.A. (TMC’s offshore engineering partner), Michael Hess (of Hess Capital), and others [41]. They bought shares at $3.00 along with warrants at $4.50, which was an early vote of confidence when TMC’s stock was much lower. Then in June 2025, a major industry player, Korea Zinc, stepped in with $85.2 million of equity financing [42]. Korea Zinc purchased 19.6 million shares at $4.34 each – a sizable ~5% stake – and received warrants (6.9 million at $7.00 strike) as well [43]. This deal was transformative: not only did it nearly double TMC’s cash, but it brought in a leading global metals company as a strategic stakeholder. Korea Zinc’s investment implied a valuation north of $1 billion at the time, lending credibility to TMC’s long-term potential. These financings, combined, infused over $120 million of fresh cash into TMC [44], allowing the company to keep progressing on its pilot programs and studies without immediate funding stress. In fact, management stated these funds give TMC “at least 2 years” of operating cash [45] – likely enough to reach late 2026.
It’s also worth noting that TMC’s soaring share price itself can improve its financing flexibility. With the stock now in the high-single-digits, those outstanding warrants ($4.50 and $7.00 strikes) are in the money, meaning warrant holders might exercise them, injecting additional cash. For example, if all the $4.50 warrants from May’s deal are exercised, TMC would receive some tens of millions more. Similarly, the $7.00 warrants from the Korea Zinc deal include a provision that TMC can force exercise if the stock stays above $10 for 20 consecutive days [46]. Such clauses hint at management’s confidence; and given the stock’s recent trajectory, it’s not unimaginable that $10+ could be attained, triggering a further capital boost. Essentially, a higher stock price is not just good on paper – it directly aids TMC’s ability to fund itself through equity.
Looking ahead, the next financial checkpoint will be Q3 2025 results, due on November 13, 2025 [47]. Investors shouldn’t expect any revenue in that report (unless perhaps some trivial income from investments or grants). The focus will be on the cash burn rate and remaining cash balance, as well as any updates the company provides on its project milestones. With no revenue and continuing losses, TMC’s quarterly reports are mainly a way to track its progress and liquidity. The company’s ability to stick to budget and efficiently use its cash will be crucial. Thus far, a ~$10 million quarterly burn is fairly moderate given the scope of work (by comparison, many pre-revenue tech startups burn far more). TMC will want to reassure investors that it can maintain that discipline – or that if spending ramps up, it’s because they’re accelerating toward construction and mining, not just overhead.
In summary, TMC’s financial profile is that of a pre-revenue speculative venture. It has a decent war chest now, courtesy of supportive investors, but its valuation (>$3 billion) is entirely predicated on future success, not current earnings. This makes it highly sensitive to changes in perceived odds of that success. The stock’s gravity-defying rise indicates that many market participants are betting on the company eventually tapping a lucrative vein of battery metals under the sea. But until TMC can actually start producing and selling those metals – or at least until it is clearly on the brink of doing so – the company remains dependent on investor funding. Profitability, or even revenue, is years away if it happens at all, so new investors must be comfortable with negative earnings and probable dilution for the foreseeable future.
Key Developments and News Driving the Narrative
TMC’s story in 2025 has been eventful. Several major developments – from technical milestones to regulatory news – have shaped investor sentiment (and thus the stock’s wild ride). Below we outline some of the most important happenings from the past year that shed light on where TMC stands now:
- World’s First Deep-Sea Mineral Reserve Declared: In August 2025, The Metals Company announced a landmark achievement – it completed a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) for its flagship NORI-D offshore project and, in the process, declared the first-ever mineral reserves for a deep-sea mining project [48]. This PFS (done to SEC Industry Guide 1300 standards) defined 51 million tonnes of probable reserves of polymetallic nodules in the NORI-D area [49]. It gave an NPV (net present value) of $5.5 billion for NORI-D and projected an 18-year mine life producing ~97,000 tonnes of nickel and significant copper, cobalt, and manganese per year at steady state [50] [51]. TMC simultaneously released an Initial Assessment for its broader license areas (NORI A–C and TOML zones), estimating an additional $18.1 billion NPV potential there [52]. Combined, TMC touted an eye-popping $23.6 billion NPV across its holdings [53] – a figure that dramatically exceeds the company’s current market cap and which bullish analysts say warrants a re-rating of the stock upward. (One Seeking Alpha analysis bluntly argued the market “must reprice” TMC higher given this $23.6B NPV milestone.) Of course, these valuations assume the projects can be executed as envisioned. But the PFS was a crucial step: it signaled that TMC’s resource is not just geological speculation – it passed a rigorous study indicating economic viability, at least on paper. Investors responded very positively to these reports in August; the stock ran up when the news hit, as it lent credibility to TMC’s claims of sitting on a “battery metals goldmine.”
- Major Strategic Investment (Korea Zinc Deal): A headline event was Korea Zinc’s investment in TMC, announced June 2025. Korea Zinc, one of the world’s largest zinc smelting companies (with interest in diversifying into other metals for batteries), purchased 19.6 million TMC shares at $4.34 apiece, injecting $85.2 million [54]. In addition, they received ~6.9 million warrants at $7.00 (exercisable over three years) [55]. This was a watershed because Korea Zinc is a substantial, established player in the metals industry – their endorsement suggested that traditional industry sees merit in TMC’s deep-sea resource. The deal also effectively put a floor under TMC’s valuation (it was done at a premium to the then-market price around $3–4). After news of the Korea Zinc stake, TMC’s stock promptly surged (at one point more than doubling over a few weeks [56]). Traders viewed it as validation that TMC’s nodules could attract real buyers/partners. Moreover, Korea Zinc could potentially be a future off-taker of TMC’s metals or assist in refining, so the partnership has strategic value beyond the cash. Notably, the Korea Zinc transaction followed an earlier $30+ million financing in May (the Allseas-led round at $3.00 [57]), meaning TMC has brought in multiple waves of funding and stakeholder support in 2025. These moves significantly de-risked the project’s financing in the near term – something that likely contributed to Wedbush’s bullish stance that TMC is now “de-risked” and entering a new phase.
- U.S. Regulatory Progress (NOAA License Applications): While the international regulation of deep-sea mining is stuck (discussed in the next section), TMC made important headway on an alternative regulatory path – through the United States. TMC’s subsidiary is pursuing licenses under the decades-old U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA), effectively asking the U.S. government (NOAA) to recognize and sponsor its mining claims in international waters. On August 11, 2025, NOAA notified TMC that its exploration license applications were in full compliance and advanced them to the final certification stage [58]. This was big news: it “reconfirmed that TMC USA has priority rights over both exploration areas” it applied for [59]. In plain English, NOAA basically said TMC’s paperwork and plans met all requirements, and barring surprises, the U.S. would approve the licenses after a ~100-day review period [60]. This came on the heels of an executive order by President Donald Trump in April 2025 directing U.S. agencies to support domestic seabed mining and assert the right to issue licenses beyond national waters [61]. Together, these moves signal that the U.S. is prepared to bypass the slow ISA process and unilaterally allow TMC (and possibly others) to mine the ocean floor under U.S. authority. For TMC, NOAA’s compliance finding was a positive signal that its target of starting mining in Q4 2027 is feasible [62] – because if the ISA doesn’t have rules in place by then, TMC could potentially operate with U.S. blessing. This development was cited by Wedbush as a game-changer that increased the odds of TMC’s success, due to “stronger US government support” [63]. TMC’s stock saw a boost mid-year as these U.S. regulatory strides became clear [64].
- Pilot Mining Test Results – Environmental Findings: Another piece of news that bolstered TMC’s case was encouraging data from pilot mining trials. TMC (with its partner Allseas) conducted pilot collector tests in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) to assess the technical and environmental aspects of vacuuming up polymetallic nodules. In 2025, the company reported that the sediment plumes generated by its seafloor collector were more benign than many had feared [65]. Specifically, the sediment disturbed on the ocean floor – a major environmental concern – appeared to settle fairly quickly and not disperse as widely in the water column as worst-case scenarios predicted. These findings were released in TMC’s environmental and technical reports and have been used to argue that deep-sea mining can be done in a controlled, responsible manner. This was a critical point for TMC to prove, given that opposition to seabed mining often centers on the unknown impact of plumes on marine life. The pilot results, along with TMC’s extensive baseline studies in its license area, are helping the company build an evidence-based case to regulators and stakeholders that it can manage environmental impacts. To be sure, environmentalists remain unconvinced (more on that later), but from an investor standpoint, the “not as bad as feared” pilot outcome was a relief that removed some pessimism from the stock. It suggested that the engineering is working and might meet environmental thresholds, which in turn makes eventual permitting a bit more likely.
- Tonga Partnership and International Sponsorship: TMC’s entire venture depends on maintaining support from the small island nations that sponsor its claims in the ISA. The company operates through subsidiaries: NORI (Nauru Ocean Resources Inc.) sponsored by Nauru, and TOML (Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd.) sponsored by Tonga. In July 2025, TMC and the Kingdom of Tonga announced an updated sponsorship agreement for TOML [66], effectively renewing and strengthening their partnership. This came as ISA negotiations heated up and as Tonga saw a change in leadership (ensuring the new government remained on board with deep-sea mining). The updated agreement likely clarified financial terms and environmental responsibilities, aligning Tonga’s interests with TMC’s progress. Keeping Tonga and Nauru satisfied is crucial: if either country were to withdraw support under international pressure, TMC’s ISA contracts could be at risk. So far, Nauru and Tonga have been steadfast proponents – Nauru even triggered the controversial “2-year rule” back in 2021 to push the ISA forward. The reaffirmation from Tonga was another sign that TMC’s key allies remain committed. This continuity improves TMC’s standing at the ISA and gives a measure of geopolitical stability to its venture (albeit coming from very small nations). It’s a reminder that while TMC is a U.S.-listed company, its mining rights are tied to agreements with Pacific Island states, a unique aspect of its business model.
All these developments paint a picture of a company that, in 2025, transitioned from concept towards execution. TMC went from being just a speculative SPAC story to having defined reserves, formal economic studies, real money in the bank from industry partners, and a clearer (if still challenging) regulatory pathway. In effect, TMC has tried to “de-risk” many aspects of its project: resource risk (by proving how much metal is actually in its licensed areas and that it can likely be mined profitably) and funding risk (by raising capital and partnering with credible players). These achievements go a long way to explaining why the stock has run up so dramatically – the company is much further along than it was a year ago, so investors have repriced it accordingly.
However, “de-risked” does not mean low-risk by any stretch. It simply means the project is moving into a new phase: from speculative exploration into the grind of permitting, construction, and scaling up – which brings its own set of uncertainties. As we’ll explore, serious regulatory and environmental hurdles remain, and not everyone is convinced TMC’s rosy projections will pan out. The next sections delve into those issues and the divided opinions around this polarizing company.
Deep-Sea Mining: Booming Prospects vs. Backlash
TMC’s fortunes are closely tied to the broader debate over deep-sea mining – a nascent industry promising a new source of critical minerals but fraught with environmental concerns. Understanding the context of this sector is key to evaluating TMC.
The Vision: The Metals Company’s pitch is simple yet bold: there are trillions of dollars’ worth of essential metals lying on the ocean floor, in the form of polymetallic nodules (often described as “potato-sized” rocks rich in nickel, cobalt, copper, and manganese). These happen to be the very metals needed for electric vehicle batteries, renewable energy systems, and other clean-tech and defense applications [67]. TMC likes to call a nodule “a battery in a rock” [68]. The idea is that instead of (or in addition to) mining nickel in Indonesian rainforests or cobalt in conflict-torn Congolese mines, we could simply scoop up nodules from the abyssal plains of the Pacific, providing a potentially lower-impact and more secure supply of these resources. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) where TMC operates – a vast area between Hawaii and Mexico in international waters – is estimated to contain tens of billions of tons of nodules. For countries racing to electrify transportation and shore up critical mineral supply chains, the CCZ’s nodules are extremely tantalizing. This is why governments and companies around the world have been exploring the deep sea: over 30 exploratory contracts have been granted by the ISA to various nations/contractors (including TMC’s contracts via Nauru and Tonga).
TMC’s business plan is to collect these nodules with robotic collectors on the seabed, pump them up to a production vessel, and then transport them to onshore facilities to extract the metals. The company claims that, if done right, this approach could avoid the issues of traditional mining – such as deforestation, large footprints of tailings and waste, child labor/human rights problems, etc. In theory, each nodule is like an ore nugget containing high concentrations of metalwith no need to dig vast pits or process tons of waste rock. It’s a compelling narrative: deep-sea mining could fuel the EV revolution with less environmental and social cost.
The Reality Check – Environmental Uncertainty: The counterargument, however, is that we barely understand the deep ocean, and mining it could have catastrophic impacts. The nodules sit on or just under the seafloor in one of the most remote and pristine ecosystems on Earth. Removing them means disturbing the seabed habitat, sucking up sediment, and inevitably killing organisms that live on or around the nodules (some of which are uniquely adapted to that environment). The plumes of sediment that the machines kick up could travel and smother marine life or interfere with species (like plankton) further up the food chain. Noise and light from mining operations could impact marine mammals or fish. And because deep-sea ecosystems are slow-growing (a nodule takes millions of years to form), any damage could be essentially permanent on human timescales. In short, many scientists and environmental groups warn that deep-sea mining risks causing “irreversible biodiversity loss” and should not proceed without much more research [69]. This is the crux of the ESG controversy around TMC. The company counters that its operations will have a smaller footprint than equivalent land mining (for instance, no drilling or blasting, and the sediment plumes mostly stay near the bottom and settle) [70]. Indeed, in a recent legal case, a U.S. judge noted it’s “eminently possible” that deep-sea mining does cause meaningful harm, but still less harm than existing methods – essentially validating TMC’s argument that it might be the lesser of two evils [71]. TMC has disclosed these environmental risks in its filings, and that judge ultimately dismissed a lawsuit claiming TMC misled investors on the impacts [72] [73]. The legal win in August 2025 was a relief for TMC – it showed that at least one court found the company to be transparent enough about the uncertainties, and it even echoed TMC’s stance that harm reduction (versus land mining) is a fair point [74].
Still, outside the courtroom, public opinion is largely wary of opening the Pandora’s box of seabed mining. A broad coalition of environmental NGOs has been campaigning for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until robust science can ensure it won’t severely damage ocean ecosystems. This movement has seen success diplomatically: 37 countries have formally called for either a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep-seabed mining as of 2025 [75]. These include major economies like Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and others – even the European Parliament has voiced support for a moratorium. Such opposition has made deep-sea mining a contentious topic at the ISA (which operates under the UN). The ISA’s mandate is to develop regulations (the “Mining Code”) that would allow mining in international waters under rules that protect the environment and ensure benefits are shared. However, progress has been slow and fraught with disagreement. In July 2023, a key deadline passed (triggered by Nauru two years prior) that theoretically allowed applications to be considered even without a Mining Code. But rather than approve any exploitation license, the ISA Council in 2023-2024 chose not to rush and continued negotiating the rules. By mid-2025, no Mining Code was finalized – effectively delaying any commercial mining under ISA auspices [76]. This was a setback for TMC’s original plan, since TMC was hoping the ISA would have regulations in place by 2023 or 2024 so it could get an exploitation contract for NORI-D. Instead, the ISA talks have dragged on, with another marathon session in 2025 that again ended without an agreement [77]. Countries pushing for more safeguards (or a moratorium) have held their ground, insisting on more time and scientific input.
The upshot is that TMC cannot currently get an ISA green light to start mining, and it’s unclear if that will change in 2026 or 2027. Some observers think a Mining Code might not be ready until 2026 or later – if ever – given the divisions. This regulatory limbo is a huge risk factor: TMC is effectively a fish swimming in uncharted legal waters. If the ISA process remains stalled or if a moratorium gains wider backing, TMC’s entire project could be delayed or even derailed. The company has acknowledged this in risk filings: it knows it might not receive an ISA exploitation contract in time, or that any future contract could come with stringent conditions.
Plan B – The U.S. Angle: To hedge against ISA paralysis, TMC has actively pursued the U.S. route. The United States is in a unique position: it never joined UNCLOS (the Law of the Sea treaty), but it did pass its own law in 1980 to govern deep-sea mining for U.S. companies. For decades, that law was dormant (since the U.S. held off actual mining pending international consensus). However, with President Donald Trump’s administration now emphasizing resource security, the U.S. has dusted off the old law. In April 2025, Trump signed an executive order asserting that the U.S. can issue licenses for seabed mining in international waters and urging the build-up of a domestic stockpile of seabed metals [78]. This executive order explicitly encourages companies like TMC and directs NOAA to fast-track their applications. Essentially, the U.S. is saying: if the ISA can’t get its act together, we’ll go ahead and support our own companies to mine, under U.S. oversight. NOAA’s finding of “full compliance” for TMC’s applications in August was a direct result of this policy push [79]. Now, TMC expects NOAA to formally grant U.S. exploration licenses for its two areas perhaps by late 2025 or early 2026 (after the certification stage) [80]. Those would presumably be converted to exploitation permits when TMC is ready to mine (targeting 2027).
From TMC’s perspective, the U.S. path is a lifeline: it provides a credible avenue to start operations even if the ISA remains gridlocked. However, this approach is not without controversy or risk either. For one, it places TMC at the center of a potential geopolitical tussle. Other countries – particularly those that support the UN process – are unhappy with the U.S. freelancing. China’s government harshly criticized the U.S. executive order, stating it “violates international law and harms the interests of the international community” [81]. China is heavily involved in the ISA (holding multiple contracts via state companies) and doesn’t want to see the regime undermined. If the U.S. goes alone and issues a mining permit to TMC, countries aligned with the moratorium stance might protest or refuse to recognize it. This could complicate things like where TMC can land and process the nodules, or to whom it can sell (though the metals themselves, once refined, would be like any other commodity). Additionally, legal challenges could emerge – for example, U.S. environmental groups might sue NOAA if they believe issuing a permit violates U.S. environmental laws or international obligations. So while the U.S. strategy is a bold workaround, it’s not a slam dunk. It does, however, increase pressure on the ISA: if the U.S. actually authorizes TMC to mine, it might force the ISA’s hand to finalize rules or risk losing legitimacy.
Global Interest Rising: Despite the controversies, 2025 has shown that deep-sea mining is moving from theory towards reality, albeit gingerly. Apart from India’s new exploration contract in the Indian Ocean [82], the private sector is stirring. One striking example: Lockheed Martin, the American defense giant, has long held old seabed licenses (from the 1980s) in the Pacific. In 2023 it sold two ISA-sponsored licenses, but it still holds rights via the U.S. system. Lockheed had seemingly shelved those plans, but now it’s re-engaging. In a recent interview, Lockheed’s COO said they are in talks with companies to potentially partner or transfer those dormant licenses to someone who will develop them [83] [84]. This signals that even big conservative players smell opportunity as policy shifts. Lockheed welcomed the Trump administration’s push, saying the U.S. could set a “gold standard” for environmentally responsible nodule mining [85]. There are also tech startups like Impossible Metals exploring gentler mining techniques (e.g. AI-guided robots that pick up nodules individually to minimize disturbance). And interestingly, nations like the Cook Islands (which have their own seabed within national waters) are advancing their own seabed mining plans, causing political debates locally [86]. So, the race to the deep sea is on, even if it’s cautious and contentious.
For TMC, being a first mover is both an advantage and a burden. On one hand, it has a head start in resource delineation, technology testing, and stakeholder engagement. It is often referenced as the case study for deep-sea mining – for example, when people discuss the industry, TMC’s progress or setbacks are front and center. The company has tried to position itself as the leader: it has even invited scientists and NGOs to observe its pilot tests, trying to demonstrate transparency. On the other hand, being first means TMC also faces the brunt of scrutiny. If it stumbles or if there is an accident during its pilot work, it could sour perceptions and prompt regulators to clamp down. Already, the short-seller Iceberg Research has drawn parallels between TMC and a previous failed seabed mining venture, Nautilus Minerals, to argue that TMC could meet a similar fate [87]. (Nautilus was a company that attempted to mine seafloor massive sulfides near Papua New Guinea; it went bankrupt in 2019 after spending hundreds of millions without ever achieving commercial production [88]. Notably, TMC’s CEO Gerard Barron was an early investor in Nautilus many years ago, and another co-founder of TMC was a former Nautilus executive, which Iceberg uses to cast doubt on the new venture’s prospects [89].) TMC insists that its situation is different – different resource (nodules vs. sulfides), different technology, and importantly, lessons learned from Nautilus’s missteps. Even so, the specter of Nautilus’s failure looms as a reminder that great theoretical resources don’t always translate to profitable mining.
In summary, the deep-sea mining sector sits at a crossroads of huge promise and huge uncertainty. TMC is essentially the poster child for this high-stakes experiment. The company has made tangible progress (reserves declared, partnerships in place) that suggests the promise is real: if allowed, TMC could begin supplying large quantities of battery metals by the end of this decade. The potential economic and strategic upside is enormous – TMC likes to point out it could become one of the world’s top nickel producers at a low cost, which would be transformative for EV supply chains [90]. However, the social license to operate has not yet been won. The coming 1–2 years will be critical: ISA deliberations, NOAA’s final permit decision, and continued environmental assessments will determine whether TMC gets the green light to launch the world’s first commercial deep-sea mine. How those play out will undoubtedly move the stock, for better or worse. For now, TMC has to continue balancing a dual narrative: convincing investors and partners that it’s environmentally conscious and regulatorily savvy, while also convincing them it’s on the cusp of a mining bonanza. It’s a tricky tightrope, and the company’s future – along with perhaps the future of deep-sea mining – hangs in the balance.
Bull vs. Bear: Diverging Expert Views and Forecasts
With so many moving parts, it’s no surprise that analysts and industry observers are sharply divided on TMC’s outlook. The stock’s tremendous rally suggests plenty of bulls are on board with the story, yet skeptics abound given the execution risks. Let’s examine the spectrum of opinions:
Wall Street Analyst Consensus: According to data compiled by MarketBeat, there are about five sell-side analysts covering The Metals Company, and their views average out to a “Hold” rating with a roughly $7–8 price target [91]. In other words, on average they think the stock is fairly valued around current levels and are in wait-and-see mode. Within that small sample, however, there’s a wide range: three analysts rate it a Buy, one a Hold, and one a Sell [92]. Price targets span from a bullish $11 on the high end to a bearish $3.75 on the low end [93] – a huge disparity indicating fundamentally different assumptions about TMC’s future. This kind of split is typical for a pre-revenue, binary-outcome stock. Analysts are essentially having to handicap regulatory/political outcomes and technological success, which is not an exact science.
The Bull Case (Wedbush & Others): The most vocal bull on TMC has been Wedbush Securities, whose analyst Dan Ives upgraded the stock to Outperform in late June 2025 and later raised the price target to $11 (from $6) [94]. Wedbush’s thesis is that TMC is uniquely positioned to benefit from megatrends in EV demand and U.S. policy support. Ives cited “increased U.S. support for domestic critical mineral chains and recent executive orders facilitating deep-sea mining” as key reasons for optimism [95]. Essentially, he argues that the geopolitical wind is now at TMC’s back: the U.S. government wants a secure supply of battery metals (nickel, cobalt, etc.), and TMC is a one-of-a-kind asset that can provide those from within the U.S. sphere of influence (the Pacific, with U.S. partnerships). Wedbush also pointed to TMC’s first-mover advantage – being ahead of any potential competitors in developing undersea resource extraction – and the company’s successful strategic partnerships and funding in 2025, which de-risked near-term liquidity. In a piece on OilPrice.com titled “Investors Seem Ready to Go All-In on Deep Sea Mining,” it was noted that Wedbush’s upgrade came on the heels of these positive developments and that they see TMC as potentially “more than 100%” undervalued compared to where it could trade if milestones are hit [96] [97]. Wedbush’s $11 target, for example, was “good for more than 100% upside from [mid-2025] levels” [98].
Some independent analysts echo the bull case by highlighting TMC’s resource scale and cost advantage. A Seeking Alpha contributor recently argued the market fails to appreciate the sheer size of TMC’s NPV ($23.6B) and implied project economics, which could make TMC a “cash machine” if it reaches production. They noted that TMC’s PFS outlines first-quartile production costs for nickel – potentially under $3 per pound net of byproducts, which is highly competitive [99] – and that EBITDA margins could exceed 40–50% at steady state [100] [101]. In short, bulls believe TMC can become an important, profitable miner supplying the “green revolution” (EVs, renewable infrastructure) and that its current ~$3–4B market cap is modest relative to that long-term potential. To them, the recent steps – funding, reserves, U.S. permits – have significantly lowered the risk that TMC ends up a bust, while the upside (if things go right) remains enormous. Some even see TMC as a possible strategic acquisition target down the road for a larger mining or industrial company, given its unique asset.
The Bear Case (Short Sellers & Skeptics): On the flip side, critics argue that TMC’s valuation and investors have gotten ahead of reality. One prominent bear is Iceberg Research, the short-selling firm known for exposing issues at companies. Iceberg has scrutinized TMC for over a year and in July 2025 released a detailed rebuttal to the Wedbush bullishness [102] [103]. Iceberg’s critique basically said: not so fast – Wedbush is painting an overly rosy and at times inaccurate picture. A few key points from Iceberg’s argument:
- Overstated Business Model: Iceberg noted that Wedbush implied TMC might integrate into processing/refining, whereas in reality TMC’s plan is to outsource processing. TMC will collect nodules but intends to have partners (e.g. a Japanese firm PAMCO) do the smelting/refining [104]. So claims about TMC directly supplying automakers might be overstated; TMC will be a raw commodity provider, not making battery-grade products in-house. This means its value-add could be less than some think (and it depends on partners’ cooperation).
- Battery Chemistry Trends: Wedbush highlighted the potential of lithium nickel manganese (high-manganese) batteries benefiting TMC (since nodules have lots of manganese). For instance, GM is working on Ultium batteries that use a higher manganese content. However, Iceberg countered that this focus ignores the bigger trend toward LFP (lithium iron phosphate) batteries, which use no nickel or cobalt at all [105]. Ford and GM have plans to also adopt LFP for many EV models, which could reduce future demand for the metals TMC will produce. Iceberg called LFP a “fundamental threat to TMC” [106]. In other words, TMC is premised on a world of ever-growing nickel/cobalt needs, but if EV makers shift to nickel-free chemistries for cost and supply reasons (as is happening, especially in standard-range cars), the addressable market for TMC’s nodules might be smaller or prices lower than bulls expect.
- Rare Earths Confusion: Wedbush’s report apparently mentioned rare earth elements as part of TMC’s strategic importance. Iceberg lambasted this, noting TMC has nothing to do with rare earths – nodules contain none of the rare earth metals used in magnets, etc. TMC’s own filings barely mention rare earths (only in passing), so Iceberg used that to claim the bull case is “error-ridden” and possibly conflating unrelated critical mineral narratives [107].
- Resource Grades & Exaggeration: Iceberg pointed out that Wedbush cited certain metal grades (e.g. implying nodules are 3% nickel or 18% copper) that are far above what TMC’s actual data shows (TMC reports ~1.3% Ni, ~1% Cu) [108]. This suggests the bullish analysis might be using incorrect assumptions, painting a more lucrative picture than reality. Lower grades mean potentially less revenue per tonne of nodules than some investors realize.
- “Nobody Has Mined Yet”: Perhaps Iceberg’s biggest point is simply that TMC is attempting something never done before at commercial scale. Contrary to any impression that this is a done deal, Iceberg stressed, “China has not started deep-sea mining, in fact, no one has.” [109] All players (including China) are still in the testing phase. This undercuts any notion that TMC will waltz into production easily – if even state-backed entities haven’t begun, it shows the tremendous technical and regulatory barriers. Iceberg basically reminds investors that there is still a long road of engineering, environmental validation, and politicking before TMC can earn its first dollar.
- Regulatory/Legal Overhang: Iceberg also highlighted a finer point: TMC’s reliance on third parties like PAMCO for processing nodules could introduce new regulatory risk. PAMCO is in Japan, a country that is part of UNCLOS and the ISA. Iceberg noted that PAMCO has conditioned its willingness to process nodules on everything being in accordance with international law/ISA rules [110]. That implies if TMC tries to use a purely U.S. license not recognized by the ISA, a Japanese company might be unwilling or unable to participate, fearing legal issues. This complicates the idea of a quick U.S.-led path. Similarly, Iceberg pointed out the logistical challenge: even if the U.S. okays mining, TMC would have to ship nodules to a refining location – which likely means another country’s port. If global sentiment is against deep-sea mining, there could be boycotts or refusal to allow importing unapproved nodules. These are speculative risks, but they underscore that TMC operates in a complex geopolitical web.
Taken together, the bear case portrays TMC as a highly uncertain gamble, possibly hyped beyond what the facts justify. Some bears essentially see TMC as “a multi-billion dollar promise built on unproven tech and hopeful regulation”. They worry that excitement over EV minerals has blinded some investors to the very real possibility that TMC’s mining never actually happens (or happens much later/at smaller scale than expected). If regulatory permission doesn’t come through, TMC could burn through its cash and end up insolvent, just like Nautilus did. Or if metal prices (especially nickel/cobalt) crash due to new battery tech or oversupply, the economic rationale could weaken. Furthermore, even if TMC does mine, there’s execution risk in scaling up: operating in the abyssal ocean is extremely challenging, and any technical failure or environmental accident could be costly.
Neutral and Long-Term Views: Some experts take a more measured stance – acknowledging both the potential and the huge uncertainty. For instance, The Motley Fool, in an article titled “Is The Metals Company Stock a Millionaire-Maker?”, discussed TMC’s prospects and essentially urged caution. They noted the stock’s explosive rise (up 437% from late 2024 to Sep 2025) and the favorable political climate under the Trump administration [111]. However, they also emphasized the open question of whether this company can truly deliver on the hype to make early investors rich, or if it’s an overhyped story that could fizzle. The Fool’s advice boiled down to not getting too “distracted” by the stock’s swings and to focus on the fundamentals – which, for now, are still speculative (no revenue, dependence on permits, etc.) [112]. In other words, investors should size their bets on TMC according to their risk tolerance: it might indeed soar multiples higher if everything goes right (making millionaires out of some), but it could just as plausibly crash if key dominoes don’t fall in place.
One striking line from a comprehensive TS2.tech analysis sums up the balanced perspective: “Investing in The Metals Company is high-risk, high-reward.” [113] The bull case imagines TMC as a cornerstone supplier of critical metals in the clean energy revolution, delivering outsized returns as it taps an immense underwater treasure [114]. The bear case, by contrast, sees an overhyped venture that could stumble on politics or practicalities, leaving investors in the lurch [115]. Both scenarios have plausible arguments behind them.
As of October 2025, with the stock near multi-year highs, it appears the market is pricing TMC closer to the bull case – or at least a successful execution of phase 1 (getting to production in a few years). Any validation of that bull thesis (say, the ISA approving a mining code, or NOAA officially granting the exploitation permit, or a major offtake agreement for its metals) could further juice the stock, given the momentum and relatively small float. Conversely, any bad news (for instance, a global agreement to pause deep-sea mining, a significant environmental study showing harm, a funding shortfall, etc.) could swiftly deflate the optimism.
Analysts will be watching upcoming milestones:
- November 2025’s earnings call may give hints on whether TMC is accelerating expenditures (which could indicate prepping for mining) or remaining in conservation mode.
- Early 2026 will likely see another ISA meeting – if by then no progress is made, pressure might build on TMC to consider adjusting timelines or strategies.
- Technical progress updates (like any new pilot tests or engineering of the full-scale collector) will also inform how close to reality the mining plan is.
For now, TMC enjoys something of a halo as the only “pure play” deep-sea mining stock. As TS2’s analysis noted, it offers unique exposure – being essentially the only way for public market investors to bet on undersea minerals [116]. This uniqueness has contributed to its 2025 outperformance (scarcity value plus speculative appeal) [117]. But uniqueness cuts both ways: there are no direct peers to compare valuation with, so the stock’s worth is almost entirely narrative-driven.
In conclusion, The Metals Company stands at the intersection of two powerful forces: the urgent need for battery metals to drive the green economy, and the equally urgent need to protect our planet’s last untouched frontier. This tension makes TMC’s journey a fascinating one, with huge implications beyond just its shareholders. Will it prove that we can responsibly harvest the ocean’s riches and usher in a new era of mineral sourcing? Or will it become a cautionary tale of ecological hubris or investor over-exuberance? The next few years – starting with how 2025-2026 play out – should provide a clearer answer. For public investors, the stock is likely to remain a roller coaster. As one analysis succinctly put it, TMC encapsulates a “goldmine or fool’s gold” dilemma [118]. It could unlock a multi-billion-dollar treasure under the sea – or sink under the weight of its challenges. The only certainty is that it won’t be a boring ride.
Sources: The information above is drawn from a range of financial and industry reports, including TMC’s Yahoo Finance profile and press releases, expert analysis on TS2.tech [119] [120], recent news coverage (Motley Fool via Yahoo Finance [121]), Investing.com and OilPrice updates [122] [123], official filings/GlobeNewswire releases [124] [125], and Nasdaq/Investing News Network articles on deep-sea mining policy developments [126] [127]. These sources provide insight into TMC’s stock performance, financials, strategic moves, as well as the broader regulatory and environmental context surrounding the company’s quest to mine the deep ocean. The contrasting quotes from a U.S. judge, “It is eminently possible that (1) deep-sea mining causes meaningful environmental harm, and yet (2) such harm is significantly less than … existing methods,” [128] and from TS2’s summary that TMC is “high-risk, high-reward” with bulls seeing a cornerstone EV metals supplier vs. bears seeing an overhyped venture [129], encapsulate the two sides of the debate. Investors are advised to keep following credible financial news outlets (Yahoo Finance, MarketBeat, etc.) and industry reports for the latest on TMC’s volatile journey.
References
1. ts2.tech, 2. stockanalysis.com, 3. stockanalysis.com, 4. finance.yahoo.com, 5. ts2.tech, 6. ts2.tech, 7. investors.metals.co, 8. investors.metals.co, 9. ts2.tech, 10. investors.metals.co, 11. investors.metals.co, 12. ts2.tech, 13. www.nasdaq.com, 14. www.nasdaq.com, 15. www.nasdaq.com, 16. www.nasdaq.com, 17. ts2.tech, 18. ts2.tech, 19. www.investing.com, 20. www.investing.com, 21. www.investing.com, 22. stockinvest.us, 23. ts2.tech, 24. finance.yahoo.com, 25. stockanalysis.com, 26. stockinvest.us, 27. stockanalysis.com, 28. stockinvest.us, 29. ts2.tech, 30. www.reuters.com, 31. www.reuters.com, 32. finance.yahoo.com, 33. stockinvest.us, 34. ts2.tech, 35. stockinvest.us, 36. stockinvest.us, 37. ts2.tech, 38. ts2.tech, 39. investors.metals.co, 40. ts2.tech, 41. investors.metals.co, 42. investors.metals.co, 43. investors.metals.co, 44. ts2.tech, 45. ts2.tech, 46. investors.metals.co, 47. stockinvest.us, 48. investors.metals.co, 49. investors.metals.co, 50. investors.metals.co, 51. investors.metals.co, 52. investors.metals.co, 53. investors.metals.co, 54. investors.metals.co, 55. investors.metals.co, 56. ts2.tech, 57. investors.metals.co, 58. investors.metals.co, 59. investors.metals.co, 60. investors.metals.co, 61. www.nasdaq.com, 62. investors.metals.co, 63. uk.finance.yahoo.com, 64. ts2.tech, 65. ts2.tech, 66. stockanalysis.com, 67. ts2.tech, 68. ts2.tech, 69. www.nasdaq.com, 70. www.nasdaq.com, 71. www.nasdaq.com, 72. www.nasdaq.com, 73. www.nasdaq.com, 74. www.nasdaq.com, 75. www.nasdaq.com, 76. www.nasdaq.com, 77. www.nasdaq.com, 78. www.nasdaq.com, 79. investors.metals.co, 80. investors.metals.co, 81. www.nasdaq.com, 82. www.reuters.com, 83. www.nasdaq.com, 84. www.nasdaq.com, 85. www.nasdaq.com, 86. www.nasdaq.com, 87. geoexpro.com, 88. oceanfdn.org, 89. geoexpro.com, 90. investors.metals.co, 91. ts2.tech, 92. ts2.tech, 93. ts2.tech, 94. www.investing.com, 95. www.investing.com, 96. ts2.tech, 97. oilprice.com, 98. ts2.tech, 99. investors.metals.co, 100. investors.metals.co, 101. investors.metals.co, 102. www.investing.com, 103. www.investing.com, 104. www.investing.com, 105. www.investing.com, 106. www.investing.com, 107. www.investing.com, 108. www.investing.com, 109. www.investing.com, 110. www.investing.com, 111. www.sharewise.com, 112. markets.financialcontent.com, 113. ts2.tech, 114. ts2.tech, 115. ts2.tech, 116. ts2.tech, 117. ts2.tech, 118. ts2.tech, 119. ts2.tech, 120. ts2.tech, 121. finance.yahoo.com, 122. www.investing.com, 123. oilprice.com, 124. investors.metals.co, 125. investors.metals.co, 126. www.nasdaq.com, 127. www.nasdaq.com, 128. www.nasdaq.com, 129. ts2.tech
