worked effectively for the oil industry. But 
the mining industry believes strongly that con- 
sidering the risks and very high costs associated 
with exploration and proving hard mineral re- 
serves, the potential profits are not now suffi- 
ciently attractive to support competitive bidding. 
The problem is presented in detail in the Ocean 
Mining section of Chapter 4 in this report and in 
the report of the Marine Resources Panel. At a 
minimum, development of outer Continental Shelf 
hard mineral resources will require amendment of 
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to take into 
account differences between petroleum and 
mining operations. 
Recommendation: 
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act should be 
amended to give the Secretary of the Interior 
additional flexibility in assigning rights for mineral 
development. 
There also are barriers to assigning rights in 
areas within State jurisdictions. For economic and 
technological reasons, sea bottom mining can 
generally be expected to begin in the shallower 
waters, which are usually in State rather than 
Federal jurisdictions. Because of little actual ocean 
mining, State laws generally do not provide for it, 
although several along the coast now have correc- 
tive laws under consideration. This situation makes 
it very difficult for a company to evaluate a 
potential mining venture, because the leasing 
procedures, rights, and total costs cannot be 
determined readily. 
Recommendation: 
The States should enact procedures that will 
encourage hard mineral exploration and exploita- 
tion on their submerged lands. 
Several guidelines for such procedures are dis- 
cussed in the Ocean Mining section of Chapter 4. 
D. SEASTEADING 
The panel believes that entrepreneurs’ acquisi- 
tion of rights to submarine areas would stimulate 
many facets of ocean development. There are 
countless ways an imaginative entrepreneur could 
develop the seabed and water column. However, 
V-16 
the present legal and regulatory framework does 
not encourage individuals and small companies 
with innovative ideas to develop such real estate. 
Where procedures exist, they generally are limited 
to oil, gas, and mineral rights and require payment 
of sizeable legal fees and bonuses. 
The person or company having an innovative 
idea often is unable to devote the time and money 
to obtain exclusive ocean rights. Initially, projects 
usually are high risk, and uncertainty in obtaining 
favorable leases often compounds the economic 
risk, making the expected value of the return too 
low to justify the capital investment. 
The State governments should seek to devise 
““seasteading” arrangements—simple, attractive 
leasing procedures specifically for the innovative 
use of the seafloor and water column. Great 
benefits are to be gained by encouraging entrepre- 
neurial investment. For example, the States should 
ponder the increase in tourism likely to spring 
from such underwater attractions as parks, hotels, 
and restaurants. In addition, aquacultural projects 
for shellfish and fin fish could be quite profitable 
and a source of tax revenue. 
The procedure most attractive to both govern- 
ment and the entrepreneur probably will be a 
long-term, renewable lease conditioned upon use- 
ful development. The lessee should be allotted 
sufficient time to make a profit on his investment. 
The seasteading approach also is fully consist- 
ent with the need for the orderly, rational develop- 
ment of marine areas. Leases can be carefully 
drafted so that each seasteader’s operations will 
mesh with the desired pattern for overall develop- 
ment. Moreover, if decided that a particular 
seastead subsequently is more suitable for another 
use, perhaps petroleum or hard mineral develop- 
ment, the specific termination date of a lease 
enables a change at a time anticipated by the 
seasteader. 
The leases should be established so as not to 
conflict with the more complex procedures al- 
ready used to allocate sectors of the ocean bottom 
for petroleum exploration and development. 
Indeed, petroleum and other mineral rights should 
be expressly excluded from the leases. 
In addition to many difficulties not yet fore- 
seen, interference with such uses as navigation and 
fishing would pose special problems for seastead- 
ing. An obvious way to avoid conflict with other 
uses would be to select locations where such 
