The UK government may have broken the law by approving the transfer of two deep-sea mining licences for exploration of mineral-rich seabed in the Pacific Ocean to an “opaque” company with ties to a US lobby group, according to Greenpeace.
The campaign group has taken the first step to kick-start a legal challenge over the government’s decision to facilitate the transfer of the permits it sponsors in the Clarion Clipperton Zone to Glomar Minerals following the bankruptcy of their previous holder, a Norwegian firm called Loke Marine Minerals.
The licences, overseen by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a UN body, grant exclusive rights to explore an area of the ocean larger than England for potato-sized polymetallic nodules. These nodules contain minerals such as copper, cobalt and nickel, which are used in both clean energy technologies and defence applications.
No extraction can take place in the Clarion Clipperton Zone until countries agree on a mining code under drawn-out and increasingly contentious ISA negotiations.
Polarised debate
The debate over the nascent industry has grown increasingly polarised since US President Donald Trump issued an executive order to fast-track deep sea mining, including in international waters – a move widely seen as an unilateral measure aimed at circumventing the ISA’s authority.
Marine scientists argue that mining the seabed could cause severe, and likely irreversible, damage to ecosystems by destroying habitats, releasing toxic plumes and creating noise pollution. Over a dozen countries, including the UK, have called for a moratorium on deep sea mining until there is enough scientific evidence to assess its impact.
Greenpeace said the UK government’s sponsorship of the exploration licences now held by Glomar Minerals “flies in the face” of its public position on the practice.
In a letter warning Britain’s business secretary of upcoming legal action if its decision is not reviewed, the environmental group said the government had acted unlawfully by failing to consider cancelling the licences. It argued that Glomar Minerals is effectively controlled by foreign states or nationals, which it claims breaches ISA rules.
The ISA regulations say activities in a license area should be carried out by people or companies that possess the nationality of the country sponsoring the contract, or are effectively controlled by them or their nationals, without giving more specific details. If entities from different states are involved, then each state needs to sponsor the license, according to the rules.
Ties to DC lobby group
Glomar Minerals assumed control of the licences last year after acquiring Loke’s British subsidiary, UK Seabed Resources, which first secured the contracts in 2013 when it was owned by US weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
Although Glomar Minerals is headquartered in the UK, the company appears to be largely managed by executives and investors based overseas. Its chief executive is Walter Sognnes, a Norwegian energy executive who also led Loke at the time the company filed for bankruptcy.
One of Glomar’s listed directors and principal controllers is Washington-based Raphael Diamond, the founder and executive chairman of Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), a US lobby group that brings together military and business leaders. SAFE advocates reducing reliance on foreign supply chains, including for critical minerals, on national security grounds.
-
Explainer: Out of Paris, but will the US formally quit the UN climate regime?
The Trump administration has decided to withdraw the US from the broader UN climate convention, raising questions about the legality of the move and what it means in practice -
A just agricultural transition takes root in Brazil
The Indigenous practice of agroforestry is enjoying a renaissance as the agricultural sector aims to decarbonise without sacrificing farmers’ livelihoods
In April 2025, SAFE publicly welcomed Trump’s executive order on deep sea mining, saying “we must make sure we don’t cede access [of seabed nodules] to our adversaries”. In a recent report, the group argued that “the United States should out-compete China to be the first nation in the world to commercialise deep-seabed minerals”.
The US is not a full member of the ISA as it never ratified the UN convention that underpins it and therefore cannot directly sponsor ISA contracts.
“Opaque” ownership
Greenpeace has raised concerns about what it describes as Glomar’s “opaque” corporate structure and funding arrangements. Incorporation documents list the company’s majority shareholder as a firm based in Delaware, a US state known for corporate secrecy laws that do not require public disclosure of owners or directors.
Company filings show that in June last year, Glomar entered into a loan agreement for an undisclosed sum with another Delaware-registered entity, MHG Funding. Under the terms of the agreement, the lender could gain sweeping control of Glomar’s assets, including “all licences”, in the event of a default.
The lender is listed as Louis Mayberg, an American financial investor and philanthropist. A donor to the Democratic Party, Mayberg funded SAFE and served on the group’s board until at least the end of 2024, according to the most recent available records.
Climate Home News had not received a response to questions sent to Glomar, SAFE and Louis Mayberg at the time of publication.
In a December press release announcing the UK government’s decision, Glomar said its priority “remains closing knowledge gaps and contributing to a robust scientific understanding of the deep sea environment”.
US permitting process fast-tracked
As governments vie to secure access to critical minerals, the race to mine the ocean seabed has been heating up, spurred on by the Trump administration and efforts by countries to break their dependence on China.
Japan said this week it had conducted the first test mission to lift seabed mud within its national waters that is rich in rare earths to a scientific ship, soon after China cut off exports to its Asian rival amid a diplomatic row.
Last month, The Metals Company (TMC) – another deep-sea mining hopeful that holds exploration licences under the ISA, which it obtained via Nauru – became the first company to seek approval to collect nodules in the Clarion Clipperton Zone from the US authorities under an accelerated process run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The company’s CEO Gerard Barron told Reuters he hopes to obtain the permit by the end of the year.
The ISA has repeatedly said it has an exclusive mandate to oversee activities in the Pacific Ocean area and any unilateral action would violate international law and undermine ocean governance.
-
West Africa’s first lithium mine awaits go-ahead as Ghana seeks better deal
Ghana wants to benefit from the scramble for lithium but its reliance on mining firms for revenue and expertise weakens its ability to negotiate preferential terms, experts say -
COP30 chief calls for two-tier climate system to speed up action beyond consensus
COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago argued in a new letter to countries that the Belém conference “shed light” on climate diplomacy’s limitations
Greenpeace worries that licences ending up in “the wrong hands” could open the door to “destructive deep sea mining that could harm marine wildlife”.
Erica Finnie, oceans campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said the “opaque structure” of Glomar makes it hard for the UK government to have full oversight of the exploration licences and the individuals involved.
“The licences should be held by independent scientific bodies with a genuine interest in doing research, as they are in other countries, instead of companies seeking to profit from mining the seabed,” she added.
A spokesperson for the UK’s Department for Business and Trade said it would not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.
The post UK government faces legal challenge over deep sea mining permits to “opaque” firm appeared first on Climate Home News.
UK government faces legal challenge over deep sea mining permits to “opaque” firm
One of the key expected outcomes from the upcoming COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Turkey, is the launch of a “just transition mechanism”.
This follows years of calls from civil society to support a “just transition” as countries shift towards low-emissions energy systems and away from fossil fuels.
At the COP30 UN climate talks last year in the Brazilian city of Belém parties agreed to establish a “mechanism” to support this goal, called the “Belém-Antalya mechanism” (BAM).
Groups that have championed the BAM want it to act as a central hub on just transitions, providing support for workers and communities around the world.
However, the details of exactly what the much-touted BAM will consist of remain vague, with developed and developing countries disagreeing about its functions and purpose.
Disagreements continued at the UN climate talks in Bonn in June 2026, including on the crucial question of how the BAM will be financed.
Here, Carbon Brief looks at where the idea for the BAM came from, how it could support just transitions and what to expect from COP31.
How has a ‘just transition’ featured in UN climate talks?
A “just transition” is the idea that workers and communities should be supported in the shift to a low-carbon economy. It is a central principle behind the idea of climate justice.
Often, the term refers to those linked to the fossil-fuel industry, but it can also refer to transitions taking place in agriculture, heavy industry and various other sectors.
The concept originated in the 1980s, when US labour unions forged alliances with environmental justice groups. It has since become a key part of international climate discussions.
The preamble to the 2015 Paris Agreement includes a commitment to “tak[e] into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities”.
Bert De Wel, policy officer at the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), tells Carbon Brief:
“The labour movement is very happy with the wide audience and broad political support that the concept has received since its inception in the 1980s. The inclusion in the Paris Agreement, with the reference to the creation of decent work and quality jobs was a milestone for the movement. While other demands have been added…we continue to stress the labour dimension as being central to the concept.”
Three years after the creation of the Paris Agreement, at COP24 in the former coal-mining city of Katowice, the Polish presidency highlighted the issue of just transitions.
The need for carbon-cutting policies to ensure “a just transition of the workforce” that creates “decent work and quality jobs” was included in the “Silesia declaration”, issued by the presidency during the first week of COP24.
While the declaration was only signed by 50 countries – roughly a quarter of the parties at the summit – it was still “noted” in the final COP text.
This helped to drive momentum behind the idea, culminating in formal agreement at COP27 in Egypt to launch a “work programme on just transition” (JTWP).
De Wel says the establishment of the JTWP was a “major step forward” that allowed parties to “speak about just transition in more concrete terms”.
In the years since, negotiators have worked to flesh out the JTWP, with disagreements between parties about what its purpose should be.
Broadly, developed countries would like it to focus