million annually) while exploitation of raw materials in the sea would 
require considerably more than expenditures on oceanography alone. 
In short, benefits reported in table 7.2 are gross benefits that might be 
expected from the national oceanographic program taken in conjunc- 
tion with a range of private and public expenditures elsewhere in the 
economy. These gross benefits could be used to derive a meaningful 
net present value or benefit/cost ratio only with an estimate of all 
investment and operating costs, both public and private, of achieving 
these benefits. 
TABLE 7.1.—Hstimated oceanographic nondefense expenditures on major U.S. 
Government missions related to the ocean or environmental improvement,* 
fiscal year 1967 
[In millions of dollars] 
Improved environmental prediction and modification__________-________- 14.5 
Development of new sources of raw materials for use in industry_________ 12.0 
Improved exploitation of marine biological resources (mainly fisheries)___ 45.0 
Improvement of the near oceanographic environment_________________-_~_ 10.5 
Improvement inocean naviration: ete= 2) 2 Eee 38. 0 
Tota ret Ae aa ea ae es Pa a ei ee 120. 0 
*These numbers differ from those listed by ICO for the national ocean program. The 
Panel believes that this table more adequately describes the total level of activity. 
TABLE 7.2—NASCOO estimates of the discounted annual value of average benefits 
of the civilian missions of the National Oceanographic Program 
Million 
dollars 
Mission : per year 
Improved environmental prediction and modification (mainly better 
weather, TOrécasting) 28 22s 2 a es oe eee 600 
Development of new sources of raw materials for use in industry__---_ 105 
Improved exploitation of marine biological resources (U.S.-owned fish- 
@QIGS) ONLY) ee Aes 20s ee yh Fa EE 8 Re 414 
Improvement of near oceanographic environment (including cost re- 
ductionsinjsewage disposal))|S2222 28 2a he eee 629 
Improvement in ocean navigation, ete. (U.S. shipping only) ---------- 365 
Moreover, the benefit figures reported in table 7.2 are somewhat 
tenuous. For example, the major expected benefits from improved 
weather forecasting listed in the NASCO report are as follows (on 
an annual basis, undiscounted) : 
Millions 
Reduced flood) damage: 2422s ee a ee eee $280 
Increased efficiency in scheduling labor and equipment in the construction 
INGUStr ys ee ee eS 1, 000 
Savings from better scheduling coal, oil and natural gas production, oil 
refining; and: transportation] =2— =" — ee eee 500 
58 
