Seismic survey companies occupy a specific niche in the energy business. They do not drill, they do not produce, and they do not take on dry-hole risk. They map what is below the surface and get paid for the mapping. That niche is the entire focus of Jim Rickards’s “$150 Trillion Birthright” presentation, and it is worth comparing the three companies he names against what the promo actually claims.

Rickards, a former general counsel at Long-Term Capital Management, best-selling author on currency and geopolitics, and editor of model Press’s Strategic Intelligence letter, argues that President Trump “opened 650 million acres of federal land containing an estimated $150 trillion in buried minerals.” His pitch says three “MDP” companies, mineral-discovery-technology plays, could dominate the discovery work. Here is an honest look at all three.

The Pioneer: Geospace Technologies

Geospace Technologies is a Houston-area maker of land and marine seismic equipment with about $116 million in trailing revenue, much of it from defense and international work. It recently won a Petrobras contract, and its shares ran up as the pitch circulated. The promo tags it with “4,800% gain potential” and forecasts $1.8 billion in revenue “as soon as next year,” which would be a roughly 15-fold jump with no disclosed driver.

The scoreboard is rough. Since the tease, Geospace Technologies is down 73.8%, and its market cap today is around $57 million, far below the figures cited at pitch time.

The Wildcat: TGS ASA

TGS ASA is the Norwegian energy-data company formed from the 2023 merger of TGS and PGS, the two leading offshore seismic firms. It collects large seismic data sets and licenses them to oil and gas customers, with a “Deep Sea Minerals Pathfinder” project on the side. The promo labels it “The Wildcat” with “1,520% gain potential.”

This is the one pick that has worked out so far. TGS ASA is up 8.9% since the tease, a single-digit gain that is still a long way from the promised four-digit return. Offshore seismic data licensing is its core business, not mining.

The Innovator: MIND Technology

MIND Technology builds offshore seismic hardware under the Seamap brand, including the SeaLink streamer and the Sea Serpent passive anti-submarine arrays. It generates about $46 million in annual revenue. The promo calls it “The Innovator” with “4,340% gain potential” and frames it as selling the “AI software” every seismic company needs.

Our teardown of the presentation found that framing overstates things. MIND Technology sells equipment, not a software layer the whole industry is obligated to buy. Since the tease, the stock is down 56.8%, and its market cap sits near $37 million.

The Claims That Do Not Hold Up

Beyond the individual picks, two claims deserve scrutiny. The presentation says “The Pioneer” has institutional ownership of “only 8%,” implying investors are early. Our check put Geospace Technologies’ institutional ownership near 67%. And the broader framing, that these are mineral-discovery plays, misses the point that all three are oil and gas seismic companies whose revenue tracks energy exploration budgets and the oil price, not mineral discovery.

The Honest Bottom Line

These are real, established survey businesses, and a genuine rebound in energy exploration would help all three. The pick-and-shovel logic is sound: surveyors get paid on activity, not outcomes. But the mineral framing and the four-digit gain targets have not matched reality, and the June 24, 2025 catalyst tied to unlocking Phase II came and went with no surge. For the broader themes, our critical minerals strategy explainer and our deep-sea mining explainer map the real policy action.

The offer behind the pitch is the Situation Report at $1,995 per year with no refunds. These are legitimate but speculative energy-services names, and the case for them should rest on rising exploration spending, not a promotional deadline.

The three also differ in what they sell. Geospace Technologies sells equipment, TGS ASA sells licensed data, and MIND Technology sells offshore hardware. That matters because their cycles do not move in lockstep. Equipment orders tend to lead a drilling cycle, data licensing follows, and the hardware makers ride in between. The presentation treats them as interchangeable “MDP” plays, but they are three different points on the same supply chain, with three different risk profiles. Reading them as one bet rather than three is a simplification that flatters the pitch more than it helps an investor.

A useful way to compare the three is through what each one must spend to grow. Equipment makers need factories and inventory, data firms need survey vessels and processing capacity, and hardware makers need engineering and manufacturing scale. Those different cost structures mean the three names will not respond the same way to a spending recovery, and treating them as one interchangeable bet ignores the difference. An investor who understands those cost structures can better judge which name benefits first when exploration budgets finally turn.

Ready to see the research? Click here to view the American Birthright presentation.

NewsletterVetter is an independent publication. We receive compensation from some of the services we review through affiliate links. Nothing on this site is investment advice. Always do your own research.