66 
5. What implications will the interim legislation have on U.S. 
foreign policy, balance of payments, and foreign aid ? 
6. How will the legislation affect the environment or interfere 
with other marine activities ? 
The hearings revealed opposition to the proposed legislation by in- 
ternationally oriented groups and individuals _ including s sever ral aur 
asa Ee, ane a oe called See Our Seas. Leg: ess 
in mT fara Aas some lopmnecd: 
The Executive branch maintained that the United States wished to 
delay taking a specific position on S. 2801 and H.R. 13904. In a letter 
to Senator Henry M. Jackson, dated May 19, 1972, John Stevenson, 
head of the Interagency Task Force on Law of the Sea and Legal Ad- 
visor to the State Department, explained: 
We are not prepared at this time to state a position on S. 2801. We realize, how- 
ever, that we cannot indefinitely postpone doing soa on legislation cf this type and 
we will watch the developments in the summer session of the U.N. Seabeds Com- 
mittee and the U.N. General Assembly session this fall very closely * * *. We will 
report to you again on this matter in the fall.™* 
In the fall hearings, the State Department was still not prepared to 
take a position on 8. 2801, citing as a reason prospects for progress in 
the continuing negotiations in the U.N. General Assembly. 
Proponents of the interim legislation cited the investment of 
several million dollars by U.S. mining companies to develop seabed 
mining technology over the last 10 years. They warned that this 
technological lead might be lost to foreign competitors if U.S. firms 
are not encouraged to proceed to commercial production. American 
mining interests stated they were hesitant to invest the additional 
sums of $150 to $300 million necessary to reach commercial production 
without some security for their mining claims. N. W. Freeman, Chair- 
man of the Board of Tenneco, Inc., of which Deepsea Ventures is a 
subsidiary, outlined the following considerations restraining further 
funding of major operations: 
1. Detailed definition of any one of Deepsea’s ore body dis- 
coveries will entail extensive, costly, and highly visible operations 
‘ on location, as will future on-site engineering tests. The location 
of the ore body will inevitably become public information when 
these operations begin. 
2. The ore bodies Deepsea has located which are of economic in- 
terest tend to be limited in area due to local phenomena including 
topography, concentration, and assay. Candidacy is judged by the 
requirements of a 40-year operation at one million short tons of 
dry nodules recovered per year. 
3. The candidate ore bodies differ significantly in bearing 
strength of the seabed, depth, current and weather conditions, dis- 
tance from support bases, and assay, composition, size, weight, and 
concentration of the nodule population. All of these phenomena 
significantly affect engineering designs, which must be tailored as 
early as possible to the particular ore body selected. For example, 
two ore bodies of equal economic value might, according to Deep- 
24 Development of Hard Mineral Resources of the Deep Seabed, op. cit., p. 7. 
