67 
sea’s experience and technology, require quite different processing 
plant equipment. The processing plant constitutes the largest 
single capital cost of the Deepsea ocean mining project. 
4, National and international monitoring of environmental im- 
pacts, if any, will require inspections during test and development 
operations thereby making compulsory disclosure of mine site lo- 
cation likely. 
Therefore, the extensive costs associated with the particular mine — 
1 A nit a aR Ae RIE eee i 
(a) The mine site location is compromised, 
(b) The engineering design is finalized, and 
(c) The construction costs are incurred.”° 
Another point made by the mining interests was the domestic need 
for the metals contained in the manganese nodules and eur increasing 
dependence on foreign sources of supply. C. H. Burgess, Vice Presi- 
dent, Exploration, Kennecott Copper Corp., cited the April 1972 in- 
terim report of the National Commission on Materials Policy entitled, 
“Toward a National Mineral Policy—Basic Data and Issues”, which 
stated : 
That as the nation’s needs continue to grow, as per capita consumption of 
materials in other countries increases at an even faster rate than ours, it becomes 
increasingly difficult for the U.S. to fill its evergrowing deficits by imports, even 
at increasing prices.” 
Mr. Burgess also pointed out that in 1970 the United States im- 
ported almost $400 million of nickel, about $600 million of copper, and 
$35 million of manganese. 
The threat of losing not only the technological lead to foreign coun- 
tries but also the products of commercial seabed operations was also 
revealed in the following exchange between Senator Metcalf and Jack 
Flipse, President of Deepsea Ventures: 
Mr. Mercar. In,your opinion would these foreign countries, some of which 
have already been outlined by previous witnesses, would they wait until ratifica- 
tion of an international treaty or a United Nations-sponsored regime? 
Mr. Fuiese. It is my conviction that they would not, inasmuch as their expend- 
itures in the area raises from a maximum of 25 percent of the cost to a minimum 
of no cost. It is this underwriting or subsidy in the foreign area which permits 
them to move ahead with much less regard for a stable political environment.” 
Supporters of the bills pointed to the need for interim legislation be- 
cause of the likely delays in obtaining a new Law of the Sea Conven- 
tion. They cited the eight years spent in preparation for the 1958 
Geneva Conventions that codified customary maritime law and sug- 
gested that an even longer period might be needed before a new inter- 
national treaty involving unprecedented legal issues would go into 
effect. They also suggested that the legislation might induce delega- 
tions to get down to business in the U.N. Seabed Committee and make 
progress in negotiations. 
Opponents of the legislation expressed the fear that unilateral action 
by the United States would destroy any hope for successfully negotiat- 
2 Ibid., p. 73. 
26 Toid., p. 35. 
°7 Tbid., p. 43. 
