89 



Sharp: Well, part of what was finally settled in the 1982 text, one 

 of the things anyway was this International Seabed 

 Authority. 



Revelle: When was that? 



Sharp: Well, I'm pretty sure it was part of the 1982 final text. 



Revelle: Yes, but it was decided long before that. The United States 

 does not subscribe to the treaty, as you know, primarily 

 because of that provision. The present administration has 

 said, "We subscribe to most of the treaty. We believe most 

 of it is customary international law. And we subscribe 

 to the Exclusive Economic Zone concept. We will not require 

 consent for marine scientific research in our exclusive 

 economic zone." Interestingly enough. 



This may change with the Defense Department getting 

 more and more stuffy about classified information. It was 

 not exactly a victory, but quite a remarkable agreement on 

 the part of the administration that they don't require 

 consent because they're very nationalistic. But they didn't 

 because somebody got to them about our problems of 

 scientific research, probably Bill Erb in the State 

 Department. He probably had a lot to do with drawing up 

 that proclamation. 



Sharp: When the US declined to sign in 1982, one of the biggest 

 stated objections that the US had was because of the deep 

 seabed mining provision. 



Revelle: That was the only objection. All the provisions which 



related to deep seabed mining, they were agin' 'em. That's 

 the only part of the treaty we don't subscribe to. 



Sharp: Much earlier than that, in '79, in your papers there were 



copies of some testimony that Elliot Richardson gave before 

 the U.S. House supporting the House Resolution 2759 which 

 would have established what was called an "interim regime" 

 to allow some of that development to occur. I wondered 

 what your perspective on all of that was? 



Revelle: Well, the whole question is moot at the present time, and 

 the reason it's moot is because the International Nickel 

 Company can't even sell its newly mined land nickel. The 

 price is below the cost of production, largely because 

 recycled nickel is cheaper than newly mined nickel, and they 

 can recycle it pretty well. 



So, in other words, the nickel's demand is satisfied 



by recycling with no need to buy the new stuff. And 



certainly ocean mining is going to be more expensive than 

 land mining. 



So the whole problem has essentially gone into the 

 same waste basket as the oil conservation and the synfuels 

 corporation. Synfuels are just too expensive with the 

 present price of oil. Manganese nodules are too expensive 

 with the present price of nickel. 



