Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission (A-NPDC)
GovernmentOppose
Offshore mining impacts
Deep sea mining environmental impact
Environmental protection
Request for Information and Interest: Commercial Leasing for Outer Continental Shelf Minerals Offshore the Commonwealth of Virginia
BOEM-2026-0100-0001RFI
Comments
1,130
Last activity Jul 30, 2026
Deadline
19 days
Closes Aug 23, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
-94%
-94% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Request for Information and Interest: Commercial Leasing for Outer Continental Shelf Minerals Offshore the Commonwealth of Virginia
- Posted
- Jun 23, 2026
- Comment period
- Jun 23, 2026 – Aug 23, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-12600
- Topics
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Analyzed 1,124 of 1,130 comments
99%· analysis in progress
Stance breakdown
-94%
Net support
Support22Oppose1,073Other29Not yet analyzed6
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -94% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Individual
1,048
Government
9
Trade association
4
Advocacy
24
Academic
6
Business
18
Other
15
Not yet analyzed
6
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted Jun 23, 2026Deadline Aug 23, 2026
Jun 22Jun 29Jul 6Jul 13Jul 20Jul 27
Support22Oppose1,073Other29
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
1%
98%
2%
Advocacy
4%
63%
33%
Business
44%
39%
17%
Other
0%
93%
7%
Government
22%
78%
0%
Academic
17%
83%
0%
Trade association
50%
50%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
| Organization | Offshore mining impacts | Deep sea mining environmental impact | Fisheries and economic impact | Environmental protection | Public engagement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission (A-NPDC) GovernmentOppose The Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission (A-NPDC) opposes seabed mineral exploration and mining due to pote | · | · | |||
Carolina Ocean Alliance AdvocacyOppose The Carolina Ocean Alliance, along with several other environmental and coastal organizations, opposes the proposed leas | · | · | · | ||
Clean Ocean Action AdvocacyOppose Clean Ocean Action, an environmental advocacy organization, opposes the proposed leasing program for offshore mineral ex | · | · | |||
Fisheries Survival Fund AdvocacyOppose The Fisheries Survival Fund, represented by legal counsel, opposes the proposed mineral mining lease area offshore Virgi | · | · | |||
National Ocean Industries Association Trade associationSupport The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) supports the federal action to pursue commercial leasing for offshore m | · | · | · | · | · |
New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association AdvocacyOppose The New England Fisherman's Stewardship Association (NEFSA) opposes the proposed mineral mining lease areas offshore Vir | · | · | |||
Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. BusinessSupport Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. | · | · | |||
Plus Nature LLC AdvocacyOppose +Nature argues that the proposed Virginia offshore mineral leasing should not proceed until a framework of "Principles f | · | · | · | · | · |
Shellfish Growers of Virginia Trade associationOppose The Shellfish Growers of Virginia, a trade association representing the state's shellfish aquaculture industry, opposes | · | · | |||
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SCCCL) AdvocacyOppose The South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (CCL) opposes the proposed commercial mineral leasing offshore Virginia, | · | · | · | ||
The Nature Conservancy AdvocacyOppose The Nature Conservancy expresses significant concerns regarding the potential for mineral extraction off the coast of Vi | · | · | |||
Virginia Maritime Association Trade associationSupport The Virginia Maritime Association (VMA), representing nearly 400 port-related businesses, supports the responsible devel | · | · | · | · | |
Virginia Spaceport Authority GovernmentOppose The Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VSA) opposes the proposed commercial leasing of hard mineral resources o | · | · | · | · | |
Wetstone US Ventures, Inc. BusinessSupport Wetstone US Ventures, Inc. | · | · | · | · | · |
Carolina Ocean Alliance
AdvocacyOppose
Offshore mining impacts
Fisheries and economic impact
Clean Ocean Action
AdvocacyOppose
Offshore mining impacts
Deep sea mining environmental impact
Environmental protection
Fisheries Survival Fund
AdvocacyOppose
Offshore mining impacts
Deep sea mining environmental impact
Fisheries and economic impact
National Ocean Industries Association
Trade associationSupport
New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association
AdvocacyOppose
Offshore mining impacts
Deep sea mining environmental impact
Fisheries and economic impact
Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.
BusinessSupport
Fisheries and economic impact
Environmental protection
Public engagement
Plus Nature LLC
AdvocacyOppose
Shellfish Growers of Virginia
Trade associationOppose
Offshore mining impacts
Deep sea mining environmental impact
Public engagement
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League (SCCCL)
AdvocacyOppose
Offshore mining impacts
Deep sea mining environmental impact
The Nature Conservancy
AdvocacyOppose
Offshore mining impacts
Deep sea mining environmental impact
Public engagement
Virginia Maritime Association
Trade associationSupport
Offshore mining impacts
Virginia Spaceport Authority
GovernmentOppose
Offshore mining impacts
Wetstone US Ventures, Inc.
BusinessSupport
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Jul 23, 2026Wetstone US Ventures, Inc.SupportBusiness📎 Attachment
Wetstone US Ventures, Inc. supports the proposed commercial leasing for OCS minerals offshore Virginia and advocates for offering a full range of minerals in broad lease areas. They recommend specific lease structures, including graduated royalty rates, a 20-year primary term with production-based continuation, and clear regulatory timelines to encourage investment.
Read comment → - Jul 20, 2026Coastal Conservation Association VirginiaOpposeIndividual📎 Attachment
The commenter opposes the proposed mineral extraction on the Continental Shelf due to concerns about the destruction of marine biological resources and the risk to historical and archaeological shipwrecks. They argue for a thorough fisheries impact assessment, the establishment of a 1,000-yard buffer around wrecks, and the implementation of a royalty system for mined materials.
Read comment → - Jul 15, 2026The Ocean FoundataionSupportAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Ocean Foundation argues that the proposed seabed lease should be preceded by a comprehensive archaeological survey to identify shipwrecks, submerged cultural resources, and unexploded ordnance. They emphasize the historical significance of the area and express concern regarding the applicant's past history with maritime salvage.
Read comment → - Jul 23, 2026Vic PepplerOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jul 23, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jul 21, 2026Paul GreenOtherIndividual
The commenter notes that the proposed area contains significant archaeological and paleontological resources from the last glacial advance. They request that the public be informed of the status of cultural resource surveys if the proposal proceeds.
Read comment → - Jul 17, 2026Betsy Moore KeaslerOpposeIndividual
An individual resident of the Eastern Shore opposes the proposed commercial leasing for minerals on the Outer Continental Shelf. They argue that the area should remain unspoiled to preserve its natural beauty and wildlife.
Read comment → - Jul 8, 2026Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividualRead comment →