And then deep sea mining could commence very promptly indeed. Senator METCALF. Professor Moore, do you have any comment?

Mr. MOORE. I would concur in those comments. I think one point that I would like to stress is that when we are urging provisional entry into force of the permanent regime and machinery, that we are committed in every form, both domestic and internationally in the Law of the Sea negotiations to, in fact, try to bring about a situation in which these activities can begin.

That there will be a meaningful provisional entry in force of the regime. That would include internationally an effort to have the kinds of regulations that were needed, that will include domestically our commitment to try to have the kinds of domestic regulations which we need

Senator METCALF. As all of you know, we in Congress live by bells and lights. A roll call has just been announced. I will recess for a few minutes, go and answer the roll call and come back as soon as possible.

Thank you for your patience.

[Whereupon a short recess was taken.]

Senator METCALF. The subcommittee will be in order. Gentlemen, this is going to happen all afternoon. I suggest now that we recess until tomorrow at 1:30. I would appreciate it if you would come back, as many of you as can, and I will proceed with my series of questions and let you go home instead of sitting around while we run back and forth answering roll calls.

Mr. Moore. We would be pleased to do that.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for your appearance today. And thank you for your testimony. Hopefully we will make a good record out of this dialog.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m. Thursday, June 14, 1973, the subcommittee was recessed to reconvene on Friday, June 15, 1973.]

MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE DEEP SEABED

FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1973

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINERALS, MATERIALS AND FUELS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m., in room 3110, Dirksen Office Building, the Honorable Lee Metcalf presiding. Present: Senator Metcalf [presiding].

Also present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; William J. Van Ness, chief counsel; Mike Harvey, special counsel; Harrison Loesch, minority counsel; Merrill W. Englund, special committee assistant for outer Continental Shelf; and David P. Stang, deputy director, national fuels and energy study.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator METCALF. The subcommittee will be in order. I am delighted to have our panel back for the continuation of hearings on S. 1134 and continuation of questions and interrogation to amplify and make the record on this hearing.

I thought their response was excellent yesterday. The answers to the questions are going to be helpful not only in our consideration of the legislation but as we mail out these reports of hearings, to other interested parties in their consideration of these very important matters with which we are confronted.

So, I will start with my questions.

How do you reconcile official U.S. opposition to S. 1134 with our balance of payments problems?

STATEMENT OF PROF. JOHN N. MOORE, COUNSELOR ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, OFFICE OF THE LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; ACCOMPANIED BY STUART P. FRENCH, LEIGH RATINER, HOWARD POLLOCK, AND JOHN K. HARTZELL-Resumed Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The opposition to S. 1134 is based on the principle reasons set out in our testimony today and also that of Mr. Brower in testifying before the House last March 1. Senator METCALF. Yes, and as I told you, we have his testimony. Mr. MOORE. That is correct. Basically those reasons are that there would be in our judgment an interference with the possibility of

achieving a timely and successful Law of the Sea Conference, particularly with respect to our objectives for deep seabed mining and the possibility of provisional application of the permanent regime and machinery.

However we feel about these issues, we can't escape from noting that others have different perceptions and feel very strongly on these issues so that I think our primary opposition to S. 1134 is certainly the interference with the negotiating process.

In addition to that of course we do feel it somewhat premature to try to set out the kind of detail for a regulatory regime that S. 1134 envisages, because we are still looking for, assessing and collecting the data that would be necessary to make the assessments.

We realize of course that there are a series of very substantial advantages to having deep seabed mining. One of those certainly is the impact on the balance-of-payments situation.

I would point out that there would be no such impact on the balance of payment situation until such mining begins and we do feel that if the existing proposal we have made can be accepted by the international community, particularly with respect to provisional application of the permanent regime and machinery, that by the time we are really ready to go ahead and engage in this mining the machinery should be ready for us.

Mr. Ratiner has an additional comment.

Mr. RATINER. Mr. Chairman, two brief additions to what Mr. Moore just said simply to keep the balance of payments situation in perspective. First a statement of fact, in 1971 we spent $600 million importing metals contained in manganese nodules and that $600 million amounts to 1.3 percent of our total import.

Now this is likely to rise in the future and we have projected various levels at which these imports will rise. But the fact is that I think the figure 1.3 percent for the present stands on its own two feet as an indication of the extent to which the metals in manganese nodules affect our balance of payments situation.

Second, by our provisional regime approach what we are in essence doing is deferring the benefits of that improvement in our balance of payments posture for not more than a year or so.

Now, that being the case, the balance of payments argument becomes a compelling argument for a suitable international arrangement which will assure that the U.S. companies mine the deep seabed, but it is not a compelling argument for legislation.

Senator METCALF. I think that is a responsible answer and I think you anticipated the question that I was going to ask that was raised when you said it was premature-Professor Moore suggested it was premature.

I was going to say how long do we wait and is it your suggestion that we wait a year or two?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, certainly I think our feeling is that we will continue to reassess the situation to make sure we are headed toward a timely and successful conference on the law of the sea that will adequately deal with these issues. As long as that is our judgement I think our assessment is that we hope in fact to get within a reason

able period of time, by 1975, a convention which will adequately deal with these issues so it would not be necessary to wait at any point beyond that.

But we will go with a convention and hopefully not alternative legislative solutions.

On the other hand, we will continue to assess the situation very cautionsly and carefully and if at any time it looks as though our assessment is changing we will consider alternative legislative proposals.

Senator METCALF. How important is the deep seabed as a source for hard minerals, 1.3 percent isn't very much of course as to the source of minerals right now, but that is only the beginning, isn't it? Or can you tell me?

Mr. RATINER. Mr. Chairman, it is extremely difficult to predict how important the seabed is. First, virtually nothing is known about the subsurface minerals potential of the deep seabed and for the time being all our questions and answers I think are largely confined to the question of manganese nodules.

It is a little bit easier for us to give you some kind of indication about the importance of manganese nodules production over the course of the next 25 years, assuming that the manganese nodule mining industry is in fact going to be successful, that is that it is competitive with land based sources of the same metals.

Now, based on the figuring that we have done, projecting the growth rate of the demand for nickel between now and the year 2000 we have come to the very tentative conclusion that approximately between 20 and 90 production units of approximately 3 million tons of nodules per year could be in operation by the year 2000.

Now, of that number, that is somewhere between 20 and 90, the figure 20 is using a 2.4 percent growth rate for nickel. The figure 90 is using a 6 percent growth rate which is used by the United Nations and some other countries. Our own Bureau of Mines uses a more conservative growth rate. But in that figure of 20 to 90 production units by the year 2000, only a portion of those will be American and even of those that are American some may in fact be located overseas that you can see that between now and the year 2000 all the metals produced from manganese nodules will be important and particularly this should present at the end of our negotiations a secure source of those metals.

Generally speaking free from the political vagaries that would correspond to mining the same metals on someone else's land territory still the amount of nickel and copper, manganese and cobalt likely to be produced as basically American production from the deep seabed will not be all that great. It can make a contribution to our balance of payments; it can make a contribution to what we would call domestic production of these ores. But, we should neither overestimate nor underestimate the importance of it.

Senator METCALF. Now if you know, what is the capacity of other nations to mine the seabed-Japan, the U.S.S.R., a combine of maybe the Netherlands and Great Britain and some of those to go forward and do what we are suggesting be done in S. 1134 pending an international agreement?