276 • Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier 



siders its operations using multi-beam bathymet- 

 ric systems to be "hydrographic surveying" rather 

 than scientific research, it remains possible for other 

 foreign navies to make the same claim to gain ac- 

 cess to the U.S. EEZ for similar purposes. 



Over 1 5 vessels are known to be equipped with 

 multi-beam mapping systems worldwide, not in- 

 cluding those of NOAA and the Navy. Multi-beam 

 mapping systems, while expensive to purchase and 

 operate, are not a technology unique or controlled 

 by the United States. Multi-beam technology is 

 shared by France, Japan, United Kingdom, Aus- 

 tralia, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, Aus- 

 tralia, Norway and the Soviet Union. (Canada is 

 now in the process of purchasing a system.) While 

 several multi-beam systems were purchased from 

 U.S. manufacturers, other countries, e.g.. Federal 

 Republic of Germany (two companies), Finland, 

 and Norway, developed their own systems. 



Multi-beam technology is not new. The first Sea 

 Beam unit outside a U.S. Navy vessel was installed 

 on an Australian naval vessel the HMS Cook, in 

 1976 and the second on the French vessel Jean 

 Charcot in 1977. The technology is over 20 years 

 old. While oceanographers are reluctant to consider 

 Sea Beam as "obsolete" or "outmoded," they 

 note, however, that better technology has been de- 

 veloped and is available in the world market. 



Export licenses have been denied to U.S. man- 

 ufacturers of multi-beam systems for sale to Brazil 

 and Korea for security reasons, but comparable 

 echo sounding equipment is available from foreign 

 sources. U.S. restrictions on the export of multi- 

 beam systems put U.S. equipment manufacturers 

 at a disadvantage. Since foreign multi-beam man- 

 ufacturers exist, current U.S. policy on technology 

 transfer does not effectively limit the availability 

 of these systems to foreign purchasers. Foreign 

 firms have interpreted U.S. policy to mean that 

 they are not restricted from collecting multi-beam 

 data in the U.S. EEZ. Moreover, operating only 

 within the domestic market, U.S. manufacturers 

 find it difficult to remain competitive. 



Private commercial firms have recently an- 

 nounced their intent to enter the multi-beam serv- 

 ice market, offering contract arrangements for ac- 

 quiring, logging and processing high-resolution 

 bathymetric data; and perhaps to recover geophysi- 



cal data as well. It is apparent that restricting and 

 controlling the acquisition and dissemination of 

 high-quality bathymetric data wUl become more dif- 

 ficult in the future as its commercial value increases. 

 Just as geophysical surveying firms have been 

 formed to respond to the offshore petroleum indus- 

 try's need for seismic survey data, so too may 

 bathymetric survey firms respond to an increased 

 demand for multi-beam data. New survey systems 

 that combine wide swath bathymetric measure- 

 ments with side-scan sonar imagery, e.g., 

 SeaMARC, are also available in the commercial 

 fleet. 



Some oceanographers believe that a large amount 

 of unclassified bathymetric data and charts of suffi- 

 cient precision and accuracy to be used for strate- 

 gic and tactical purposes are already in the public 

 domain and that much of it may have to be classi- 

 fied if subjected to the Navy's positioning tests. For 

 example, many of NOAA's single-beam surveys 

 that are run with precise electronic control and close 

 line spacing for charting coastal areas and harbor 

 approaches have resolution comparable to multi- 

 beam surveys and are currently in the public do- 

 main. A considerable amount of similar commer- 

 cial data has also been collected and is available for 

 sale. A potential adversary would only need selected 

 data sets to complicate a warfare situation. 



The current move to classify bathymetric data 

 is not the first time data restrictions have been im- 

 posed on the oceanographic community. From the 

 end of World War II in 1945 to weU into the 1960s, 

 some bathymetric data collected in deep ocean areas 

 by the single-beam systems were also classified. One 

 difference between now and then is that earlier sur- 

 veys were either made by Navy vessels or procured 

 by Navy contract; there was no drain on civilian 

 research and survey budgets, hence little proprie- 

 tary claim for access to the data could be made by 

 civilian interests. 



Observations and Alternatives 



Dealing from its position of power regarding 

 security matters, the Department of Defense ap- 

 pears not to have opened the doors of inquiry wide 

 enough to allow adequate involvement of the sci- 

 entific and commercial communities. Even in its 

 dealings with NOAA, the Navy leaves an impres- 



