68 
ing a seabed treaty, and would instead initiate a universal grab for 
distant offshore claims. They pointed out that S. 2801 and H.R. 13904 
are directly opposed to the stated position of the President and the 
U.S. delegation to the U.N. Seabed Committee. Furthermore, while the 
U.N. Declaration of Principles and the Moratorium Resolution are not 
legally binding on any nation, they convey recommendations to gov- 
ernments with the expectation that U.N. members will abide by them. 
Opponents were concerned that the provisions of S. 2801 would be 
characterized as an attempt by the United States unilaterally to claim 
national jurisdiction over areas of the deep ocean bottom beyond the 
limits of U.S. national jurisdiction. 
Another point raised in opposition to licensing U.S. nationals to 
develop seabed mining operations was inadequate consideration for 
the ocean environment. Senator Alan Cranston described the lack of 
environmental regulation as one of the most important flaws in the 
bill and stated, “S. 2801 fails to establish procedures by which damages 
for environmental pollution could be assessed peacefully and fairly.” ** 
Lack of environmental data was also cited as a reason for delaying 
action on the bills. However, preliminary studies were introduced indi- 
cating the mining method developed by Deepsea Ventures produced 
no significant environmental effects. These studies were conducted in 
the summer of 1970 by scientists of the Lamont-Doherty Geological 
Observatory in 800 meters of water on the Blake Plateau in the At- 
lantic. Dr. Oswald A. Roels, the principal investigator, stated that 
under the conditions employed, the discharged water remained in the 
euphotic zone; was not likely to produce anoxic conditions; and would 
increase phytoplankton growth (which could lead to increased marine 
food chain productivity) only if its concentration, after mixing with 
surface water, exceeded 10 percent, which it did not. Dr. Roels also out- 
lined a program for future research to further assess the environmental 
impact of seabed mining. 
Among the specific objections raised to S. 2801 and H.R. 13904, Sam- 
uel R. Levering of Save Our Seas stated: 
1. The size of the blocks (40,000 square kilometers) is too large. 5,000 Iilo- 
meters should be enough. 
2. Total holdings by one licensee of about 400,000 square kilometers within a 
circle with a diameter of 12500 kilometers again is much too large. This might 
yield forty times the current annual consumption of nickel. Full implementation 
of this provision soon might substantially exhaust the possibilities for commercial 
exploitation of the best nodule sites. 
3. The principle of exclusive occupancy is unnecessary. What is needed is ex- 
clusive access for harvesting nodules from the ocean floor by moving machinery. 
4. No provision is needed now for subsurface mining. Present provision should 
be limited to operation on or immediately below the deep ocean floor. 
5. The license should be to exploit a certain number of tons of nodules over a 
certain limited number of years (for example, 20 years), not into the far dis- 
tant future.” 
Mr. Levering also suggested that negotiations with other nations 
leading to mutual restraint is a better way to prevent others from “get- 
ting ahead” of the United States. 
Mr. Frank L. LaQue, former Vice President of International Nickel 
Co., also criticized the large size of the licensed blocks and suggested 
licensing only rights to access to specified quantities of nodules within a 
28 Tbid., pp. 20—21. 
29 Thid., p. 70. 
