Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier · Foreword Throughout history, man has been...

Marine Minerals: Exploring Our NewOcean Frontier

July 1987

NTIS order #PB87-217725

—

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Marine Minerals: Exploring Our NewOcean Frontier, OTA-O-342 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July1987),

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619837

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form on p. 349)

Foreword

Throughout history, man has been fascinated by the mysteries that lay hidden belowthe ocean surface. Jules Verne, the 19th century novelist, author of 20,000 Leagues Underthe Sea, captured the imagination and curiosity of the public with his fictional-butnonetheless farsighted—accounts of undersea exploration and adventure. Since his classicportrayal of life beneath the ocean, technology has enabled us to bridge the gap betweenJules Verne’s fiction and the realities that are found in ocean space. Although the techno-logical triumphs in ocean exploration are phenomenal, the extent of our current knowl-edge about the resources that lie in the seabed is very limited.

In 1983, the United States asserted control over the ocean resources within a 200-nautical mile band off its coast, as did a large number of other maritime countries. Withinthis so-called Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a vast area of seabed that might containsignificant amounts of minerals. It is truly the Nation’s ‘‘New Frontier.

This report on exploring the EEZ for its mineral potential is in response to a joint requestfrom the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the House Committeeon Science, Space, and Technology. It examines the current knowledge about the hardmineral resources within the EEZ, explores the economic and security potential of seabedresources, assesses the technologies available to both explore for and mine those resources,identifies issues that face the Congress and the executive branch, and finally presents optionsto the Congress for dealing with these issues.

Substantial assistance was received from many organizations and individuals in thecourse of this study. We would like to express special thanks to the OTA advisory panel;the numerous participants in our workshops; the project’s contractors and consultants forcontributing their special expertise; the staffs of the executive agencies that gave selflesslyof their knowledge and counsel; the many reviewers who kept us intellectually honest andfactually accurate; and our sister congressional agency, the Congressional Research Service,for making available its expertise in seabed minerals. OTA, however, remains solely re-sponsible for the contents of this Report.

W JOHN H. G I B B O N SDirector

. . .///

-. —

OTA Ocean Frontier Advisory Panel

John V. Byrne, Chah-President j Oregon State University

Robert Bailey John La BrecqueDepartment of Land Conservation and Senior Research Scientist

Development Lamont-Doherty Geophysical ObservatoryState of Oregon Donna MoffittJames Broadus Office of Marine AffairsDirector, Ocean Policy Center State of North CarolinaWoods Hole Oceanographic Institute J. Robert MooreFrank Busby Department of Marine StudiesBusby Associates, Inc. University of Texas

Clifton Curtis W. Jason MorganPresident Department of Geological and GeophysicalOceanic Society Sciences

Richard GreenwaldPrinceton University

General Counsel Jack E. ThompsonOcean Mining Associates President, Newmont

Robert R. HesslerScripps Institution of Oceanography

Alex KremVice PresidentBank of America

Mining Company

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panelmembers. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes fullresponsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv

OTA Ocean Frontier Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTAScience, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Robert W. Niblock, Oceans and Environment Program Manager

James W. Curlin, Project Director

Project Staff

Rosina M. Bierbaum, Analyst

James E. Mielke, Specialist in Marine and Earth

William E. Westermeyer, Analyst

Jonathan Chudnoff, Research Assistant

Sciences1

Elizabeth Cheng, Stanford Summer Fellow

W. William

Edward E.

Consultant

Francois Lampietti

Contractors

Harvey, Arlington Technical Services

Horton, Deep Oil Technology, Inc.

Lynn M. Powers

Richard C. Vetter

Administrative Staff

Kathleen A. Beil,

Jim Brewer,

Brenda B.

Administrative Assistant

Jr., P.C. Specialist

Miller, Secretary

‘Congressional Research Service, Science Policy Division, Library of Congress.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the many individuals who shared their special knowledge, expertise, and informa-tion about marine minerals, oceanography, and mining systems with the OTA staff in the course of thisstudy. Others provided critical evaluation and review during the compilation of the report. These individ-uals are listed in Appendix F in this report.

Special thanks also go to the government organizations and academic institutions with whom theseexperts are affiliated. These include:

U.S. Geological Survey:Office of Energy and Marine GeologyStrategic and Critical Materials ProgramWestern Regional Office, Menlo Park, CA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:Ocean Assessment DivisionCharting and Geodetic ServicesOffice of Ocean and Coastal Resource ManagementAtlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory

U.S. Bureau of Mines:Division of Minerals Policy and AnalysisDivision of Minerals AvailabilityBureau of Mines Research Centers—

Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MNSalt Lake City, UTSpokane, WAReno, NVAvondale, MD

Minerals Management Service:Office of Strategic and International Minerals

We are particularly indebted to the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,Woods Hole, MA, and the LaSells Stewart Center and Hatfield Marine Science Center of Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, OR, who graciously hosted OTA workshops at their facilities.

vi

Contents

Chapter Page

l. Summary, Issues, and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. Resource Assessments and Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393. Minerals Supply, Demand, and Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814. Technologies for Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone . ..................1155. Mining and At-Sea Processing Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........1676. Environmental Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2157. Federal Programs for Collecting and Managing Oceanographic Data . ........249

Appendix Page

A. State Management of Seabed Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....282B. The Exclusive Economic Zone and U.S. Insular Territories . ...............292C. Mineral Laws of the United States . . . . . . . . . . ............................300D. Ocean Mining Laws of Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............307E. Tables of Contents for OTA Contractor Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...319F. OTA Workshop Participants and Other Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322G. Acronyms and Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........330H. Conversion Table and Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........332

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....339

vii

Chapter 1

Summary, Issues, and Options

CONTENTS

PageExclusive Economic Zone: The Nation’ s New Frontier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Mineral Resources of the EEZ in Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Mineral Occurrences in the U.S. EEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Minerals Supply, Demand, and Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Outlook for Development of Selected Offshore Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Titanium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Chromate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Phosphorite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Gold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Sand and Gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Deep-Sea Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Technologies for Exploring the Seabed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Technologies for Mining and Processing Marine Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Environmental Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Collecting and Managing Oceanographic Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Summary and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Focusing the National Exploration Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Providing for Future Seabed Mining... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Improving the Use of the Nation’s EEZ Data and Information.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Providing for the Use of Classified Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Assisting the States in Preparing for Future Seabed Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Boxl-A.l-B.

l - c .

BoxesPage

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A Source of Confusion: Geologic Continental Shelf; JurisdictionalContinental Shelf; Exclusive Economic Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Prelease Prospecting for Marine Mining Minerals in the EEZ: MineralsManagement Service Proposed Rules ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

FiguresFigure No. Page

l-1. The Ocean Zones, Including the Exclusive Economic Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41-2. U.S. Mineral Imports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9l-3. Potential Hard Mineral Resource in the EEZ of the Continental United

States, Alaska, and Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter 1

Summary, Issues, and Options

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE: THE NATION’S NEW FRONTIER

Ever since the research vessel H.M.S. Challengerhoisted manganese nodules from the deep oceanduring its epic voyage in 1873, there has been per-sistent curiosity about seabed minerals. It was notuntil after World War II, however, that the black,potato-sized nodules like those recovered by theChallenger became more than a scientific oddity.The post-war economic boom fueled an increasein metals prices, and as a result commercial interestfocused on the cobalt-, manganese-, nickel-, andcopper-rich nodules that litter the seafloor of thePacific Ocean and elsewhere. World War II alsoleft a legacy of unprecedented technological capa-bility for ocean exploration. Oceanographers tookadvantage of ocean sensors and shipboard equip-ment developed for the military to expand scien-tific ocean research and commercial exploration.

Over the last 30 years, much has been learnedabout the secrets of the oceans. Several spectacu-lar discoveries have been made. For instance, onlytwo decades ago, most scientists rejected the ideasof continental drift and plate tectonics. Now, largelydue to research carried out on the oceanfloor, scien-tists know that the surface of the Earth is constructedof ‘plates’ which are in exceedingly slow but con-stant motion relative to each other. Plates pull apartalong ‘‘spreading centers’ where new crustal ma-terial is added to the plates; plates collide along‘‘subduction zones’ where old crust is thrust down-ward. While these plates move at rates of only afew inches per year, crustal material moves as ifon a conveyor belt from spreading center to sub-duction zone. More recently, scientists have dis-covered that the seafloor spreading centers are zoneswhere mineral deposits of potential use to human-ity are being created. These sites of active mineralformation are often habitats for unique biologicalcommunities.

Scientists are excited by the new discoveries thathave enabled them to better understand the Earth’sstructure and the processes of mineral formation,among other things. Other experts are more in-

terested in the implications of this new knowledgefor potential financial gain. Nonetheless, despitethe several decades of scientific research since WorldWar II and some limited commercially oriented ex-ploration, only the sketchiest picture has beenformed about the type, quality, and distributionof seabed minerals that someday may be exploita-ble. A large part of the ocean remains unexplored,and this is almost as true of the coastal waters un-der the jurisdiction of sovereign states as it is of thedeep ocean.

During the past three decades, many coastal na-tions have established Exclusive Economic Zones(so-called EEZs)–areas extending 200 nauticalmilesl seaward from coastal state baselines where-in nations enjoy sovereign rights over all resources,living and non-living (see figure l-l). The EEZ con-cept has given new impetus to acquiring knowledgeabout the oceans and the inventory of mineraldeposits within coastal nation jurisdiction. Morethan 70 coastal countries have now established Ex-clusive Economic Zones. When the United Statesestablished its own EEZ by Presidential proclama-tion in March 1983, it became the 59th nation todo so. Covering more than 2.3 million square nau-tical miles (nearly 2 billion acres, equivalent to morethan two-thirds of the land area of the entire Unit-ed States), the U.S. EEZ is the largest under anynation’s jurisdiction. 2 Its international legal stand-ing is based on customary international law, whichhas been codified in the Law of the Sea Convention(see box l-A). Although the United States has thus

1A nautical mile is 6,076 feet. All uses of the term ‘‘m ilc in thisassessment refer to a nautical mile.

‘L. Alexander, “Regional Exclusive Economic Zone Management,in Excfusive Economic Zone Papers, Oceans 1984 (Washington, DC:Marine Technology Society, 1984), p. 7. Others hai’e estimated theU.S. EEZ to be much larger—3.9 billion acres—but the larger esti-mate includes portions of the former Pacific Trust Territories that areno longer considered U.S. possessions (See W.P. Pendley, ‘ ‘America’sExclusi\’e Economic Zone: The Whys and Wherefores, Excfusi$’eEconomic Zone Papers, Oceans 1984 [Washington, DC: Marine Tech-nology Society, 1984], p. 43. )

3Law of the Sea Convention Article 55 et seq.

3

4 ● Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier

Figure 1-1 .—The Ocean Zones, Including the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends 200 nautical miles from the coast. Within the EEZ, the coastal States have jurisdictionover the resources in the 3-mile territorial sea*, and the Federal Government has jurisdiction over the resources in the remaining197 miles.

● Except for Florida and Texas where State jurisdiction extends seaward 3 marine leagues (approximately 9 miles).

SOURCE: B. McGregor and M. Lockwood, Mapping and Research in the Exclusive Economic Zone (Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, 1985), p. 3.

far declined to sign the agreement, the legal statusof the U.S. EEZ is not in question. Like the EEZsof most other countries, the U.S. EEZ remainslargely unexplored. It is the Nation’s ocean frontier.

This assessment addresses the exploration anddevelopment of the U.S. territorial sea, continen-tal shelf, and new EEZ, focusing on the mineralresource potential of these areas except for petro-leum and sulfur. The known mineral depositswithin U.S. waters are described; the capabilitiesto explore for and develop ocean mineral resourcesare evaluated; the economics of resource exploita-tion are estimated; the environmental implicationsrelated to seabed mining are studied; the contri-bution that seabed minerals may make to the Na-tion’s resource base are examined; and the impor-tance of seabed minerals relative to worldwidedemand and to land-based sources of supply isassessed.

Unlike the sovereign control that governmentshave traditionally exercised over their territorial

possessions, control over the ocean and the utili-zation of its resources has been accommodatedthrough intricate rules of international maritime lawthat have evolved since the 1600s. The ExclusiveEconomic Zone is an outgrowth of the Law of theSea Convention—the most recent international ef-fort to develop a more comprehensive law of the sea.

Within its EEZ, the United States claims “sover-eign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploit-ing, conserving and managing natural resources,both living and non-living, of the seabed and sub-soil and the superjacent waters. Each of the U.S.coastal States retains jurisdiction over similar re-sources within the U.S. territorial sea, a 3-nautical-mile band seaward of the coast, that was awardedto the States by Congress in the Submerged LandsAct of 1953.5 The interests of the coastal States inthe 3-mile territorial sea and the responsibilities ofthe Federal Government in the administration of

‘Executive Proclamation No. 5030 (1983). Law 83-31; 67 Stat. 29 (1953); 43 U.S.C. 1301-1315.

Ch. 1—Summary, Issues, and Options ● 5

the EEZ make the management of offshore resources provisions of Executive Proclamation No. 5030, is-a joint Federal-State problem. G sued in 1983, which established the U.S. Exclu-

As of July 1987, Congress had yet to enact im- sive Economic Zone except for reference in a few

plementing and conforming legislation to codify the specific laws. The legislative task of implementingthe EEZ Proclamation is not trivial. Reference tonational ocean boundaries is contained in numer-

6R. Bailey, “Marine Minerals in the Exclusive Economic Zone:Implications for Coastal States and Territories, ” White Paper, Western ous statutes, and the impact on each must be con-Legislative Conference, Pacific States/Territories Ocean Resource sidered carefully when amending laws to implementGroup, Feb. 28, 1987, p. 32. the new EEZ.


. the most important aspect of theReagan Proclamation is its ceremonialdeclaration that the resources within theEEZ, . . . are declared to be held in trustby the U.S. Government for the Amer-ican people.

Extension of U.S. control over the resourceswithin the 200-mile EEZ in 1983 actually added—for practical purposes—little additional area to thatalready under the control of the United States. TheU.S. and other coastal countries already had as-serted control over fish within a 200-mile zone (un-der the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Man-agement Act of 19767 and over other resourceslocated on the continental shelves. This extendedcontrol over resources can be traced to the Tru-man Proclamation of 1945, in which PresidentHarry Truman declared that the United States as-serted exclusive control and jurisdiction over thenatural resources of the seabed and the subsoil ofthe continental shelf.8 Many believe this proclama-tion was responsible for a flurry of new maritimeclaims. Following the proclamation, for instance,Chile, Peru, and Ecuador claimed sovereignty andjurisdiction out to 200 miles9 and considered the200-mile zone to be wholly under their national con-trol for all ocean uses except innocent passage ofships. Various other claims, but none quite so ex-tensive, were asserted by other countries in the wakeof the Truman Proclamation.

The United States implemented the TrumanProclamation by passage of the Outer Continen-tal Shelf Lands Act in 1953. This act authorizesleasing of minerals in the continental shelf beyond

—..7Public Law 94-265 as amended. The Fishery Conservation and

Management Zone extends seaward from the 3-mile State-controlledTerritorial Sea and is contiguous with the EEZ. The seaward bound-aries of Texas, Puerto Rico, and the gulf coast of Florida extend 9nautical miles; all other States have a 3-mile seaward boundary.

8Executive Proclamation No. 2667; 59 Stat. 884 (1945).‘L. Alexander, “The Ocean Enclosure Movement: Inventory and

Prospect, ” San Diego Law Review, vol. 20, No. 3, 1983, p. 564.

the State-controlled territorial sea.10 The unilateralaction of the United States in extending jurisdic-tion over the petroleum-rich continental shelf ledto an international agreement in 1958 (see box 1-B). As a result, all coastal nations acquired therights to explore and exploit natural resourceswithin the continental shelves adjacent to theircoasts. 11

The area of the U.S. continental shelf is esti-mated to be approximately 1.6 million square nau-tical miles. Thus, a substantial proportion of thearea of the recently proclaimed EEZ has been un-der the jurisdiction of the United States since 1945;mineral leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf hasbeen authorized since 1953; and fisheries have beenmanaged within the 200-mile Fishery Conservationand Management Zone since 1976. Hence, onlymineral deposits in areas within 200 miles of thecoast but beyond the continental shelf edge—theleast accessible part of the EEZ—have been addedto the resource base of the United States with theestablishment of the new EEZ.

President Ronald Reagan’s establishment of anExclusive Economic Zone in 1983 kindled interestin the exploration of the ‘‘newly acquired" offshoreprovince. Some likened the creation of the EEZ tothe Louisiana Purchase. Others called for an EEZexploratory venture akin to Lewis and Clark’s ex-ploration of the Northwest or John Wesley Powell’sgeological reconnaissance of the western territoriesin the 1800s. Perhaps the most important aspectof the Reagan Proclamation is its ceremonial decla-ration that the resources within the EEZ, whetheron the seafloor or in the water column, whether liv-ing or non-living, whether hydrocarbons or hardminerals, are declared to be held in trust by theU.S. Government for the American people.

Iopub]ic Law 83-212, 67 Stat. 462 (1953), 43 U. S.C. 133 1-1356;as amended Public Law 95-372, 92 Stat. 629 (1978), 43 U.S, C.1801-1806.

L1 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf (UNCLOS 1), 15 UST471 ; TIAS 5578.


Bos 1-.-A Source of Coafaaion: GeoIoP: Coadaeatal SWf'; .JarIMllctiOlJal Continental Shelf; Eului.e ~ Zoae

IDtemationaI and domadc law ... established eev- area. that extend beyond its territorial sea through-~al ocean zones to accoaunodate the exploration out'the DatutaI prolongation of its land territory to and development of ocean resources. For instance, tll.eouteredp Of the continental margin ... " Where "Outer Continental SheIr' it~ in the Outer C~n- • ,c'CO!l~fttal !!l-.rgi.n" extends beyond the boulld~ tinental Shelf Landa Act to define the Federal off· > afyof the 2<JO..mBe EBZ, LOSC requires that signa-shore area in which mineral leasing is authorized. ...,. nadons establish a (mite outer limit based on The Iepl entity' 'Outer Contmental Shclr' it easily .... uIae for determining where the foot of the con-confuaed with the "continental Ihcif," which it... tfnental slope meets the abyssal depths of the ocean. seal. subsea landform with scientific defiamo.. However, regardless of where such an outer point Establilbme.nt of the Exclusive Ec::onomk Zone~) may lie as determined by formulae, the continental contributed more to the confusion. The BD ove... shelf can neither extend more than 350 nautical miles lay. both the jursidictional Outer Continental Shelf from the coast, nor exceed 100 nautical miles beyond and the geological continental shelf (figure 1-1). _8,200 foot isobath (point of equal water aepth). These overlapping zones seldom coincide ellaCdy $

and in. some instances the geologic continental shelf may extend well beyond the 200-mile EEZ, while in other cues where the shelf is narrow it may extend only a few miles seaward, well short of the line of demarcation for the UZ.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of t953 defmei Outer Continental Shelf as. "aD submerged lands lying seaward and outside of the area of lands beneath navigable waten ... (tbree-mile Statecontrolled territorial sea J. . ., and of which: the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United Statea. . . t, A more precise definition of the continental shelf emerged from the international Convention on the Continental Shelf in 1958, which described it as ex· tending from shore to a depth of 200 meten or beyond that limit to where the depth of the supeIjac:ent water admits of exploitation of the natural resources.

The 1958 international definition of continental shelf, therefore, i. somewhat open-ended regarding the seaward extension of the shell and bases'the de- . termination of the final outer boundary on technc);.} logical capability to explore and exploit. The World Court has limited the extent of the contineatal shell, at least in cases of boundary disputes, hued on tbe . notions of proximity and natural· prolonptioa .... cauae the land is the legal 8OUJ'Ce of a state' J IDaIiJv: ju.."..ediction, it mUlt be ==Hi:hed that the cubmerpct lands are in fact phy.ical extensions of the state'. territory.·

The United Nations Law of the Sea Confereatc:C.;./ : which concluded in 1982, established yet ~ ~ .. , temational definition for the continental .... 'Acti .• ' cle 1601 the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC)~ d;'~ fiaea it as the '(sea-bed and subsell of the submarine

S~ the United States is not signatory to the recent LOSC, the limitations imposed by Article 76 dO, llOt apply. Some legal analysts believe that the tt58 Oonvention on the Continental Shelf with its ~, technology-determined definition of the outer bbundary of the shelf would apply unless Conpeupnefi.'les its bounda..ties in subsequent EEZ k"Il= piementing legislation. Under the more liberal 1958 interpretation, the Outer Continental Shelf could perhaps extend aeveral hundred miles beyond the EEZ. ACcording to ttiia legal reasoning, with disagreement amOa,lepl analysts on the overlapping effects of the UZ, the Outer Continental Shelf, the continental shelf within the Qieaniugofthe 1958 Convention on the Contintental Shelf, and international ocean space beyond, there is the pouibility that a legal "no-man's 1aDd" e:xiaJa otrshore where DO domestic law governs.

The poIopcal definition of the continental shelf is ooIy s1ipdy more precise than the several legal dehitic=. The Dolphin Dictionary of Geological Tenas cfeInea it as the "gendy sloping, shallowly ~ •• ~ zone of the continents extend-iaI"-*'" to an abrupt increase in bottom • ~ ~ '; 0.

0

....... average depth less than 600 feet, ..,.u.,;las than 1 to 1,000, local relief less

.' • 10 led, width ranging from very narrow to more ta.n 2W oWes. " For scientific purposes, the defini._;iI adequate since geologists can generally agree :·.~.t.M;~tal shelfbegins and ends. The ".. ). . , ',~ ..,lore and develop resources of

. . L..,c"J.~t administrators charged : ......... ;~_continental shelf have more difficulty in deciding the jurisdictional limits of the Outer Continental Shelf.


MINERAL RESOURCES OF

The economic potential for seabed min-ing at this time is not favorable whencompared to alternative sources of sup-ply for most mineral commodities.

Knowledge about marine geology has steadilyaccumulated in recent years. Such knowledge hasenabled scientists to revise their theories about theformation of some types of mineral deposits andto better predict where new deposits might befound. For instance, many continental features andmineral deposits were formed on or beneath theseabed. By studying the formation of mineral de-posits on the oceanfloor, earth scientists are betterable to understand geology on land. In the case ofthe formation of polymetallic sulfide deposits atseafloor spreading centers, mineral deposition canbe observed as it occurs.

At the same time, knowledge of mineral depos-its on land—gained through years of geological ob-servation and research—provides clues about thenature and possible location of offshore minerals.For example, beach sand deposits containing heavyminerals (e. g., chromite or titanium) or phos-phorites that were formed under the ocean beforeancient seas receded may help identify the likelylocation and composition of similar deposits locatedin nearshore areas. Polymetallic sulfide deposits,now on shore but formed under the sea, haveyielded large commercial quantities of copper, zinc,and lead ores. Knowledge about these onshore de-posits may lead to better understanding of the evo-lution of polymetallic sulfide ores formed under theocean.

Aside from the scientific knowledge that com-parative studies of undersea and onshore mineraloccurrences can provide, the potential for discov-ering sizable deposits of minerals on land or in theocean as a result of seabed exploration could be im-portant in the future. The economic potential ofseabed mining at this time is not favorable when

THE EEZ IN PERSPECTIVE

compared to alternative sources of supply for mostmineral commodities. However, onshore mineraldeposits are finite, and, given sufficient economicincentives, even the higher cost seabed mineral de-posits may become commercially viable—and per-haps attractive later.

Investment in seabed exploration and ocean min-ing technology should be considered a long-termventure. Its value cannot be gauged against eithercurrent economic conditions or present mineral de-mand. In the past, even short-term demand pro-jections for mineral and energy resources havewidely missed their marks. There is little reasonto believe that supply and demand relationships willbe any more predictable in the future. Today’sovercapacity in many sectors of the minerals indus-try may give way to increased demand as popula-tions expand and global economic growth resumes.On the other hand, changes in technology can alsoresult in reduced demand for conventional mineralcommodities through substitution, recycling, intro-duction of new materials, and miniaturization.Growth in minerals demand has been linked toworld economic growth, and it is likely that thecourse of minerals consumption will continue to beaffected by economic trends in the future.

Until more is understood about the location, ex-tent, and characteristics of offshore minerals withinU.S. jurisdiction, including their associated marineenvironment, the economic future of seabed min-erals is mere conjecture. Their market position willbe first determined by comparing their productioncosts with those of their closest domestic and for-eign onshore competitors and next with compet-ing foreign offshore producers. Minerals markets,as with most commodities, favor the least cost pro-ducers first, thus recognizing an economic peck-ing order among potential mineral sources. The de-terminants of minerals costs are dynamic and canchange dramatically with the development of cost-saving technologies, discovery of exceptionally richore bodies, or erratic jumps in market prices as aresult of increased demand or of supply disruptions.However, if environmental impacts could resultfrom the mining or processing of seabed minerals,


Even though the occurrence of someminerals within the EEZ might have adim economic future . . ., an under-standing of their location, extent, andavailability y could provide an importantcushion under emergency conditions.

then the cost of mitigating or avoiding damage tothe marine environment must also be consideredin determining economic feasibility of development.

The strategic importance of several minerals inthe seabed—e.g., cobalt, chromium, manganese,and the platinum group metals—could make fu-ture economic considerations secondary to national

Figure 1-2.—U.S.

(Million dollars)

3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500

I I I I I I I80 ~

security. Between 82 and 100 percent of these crit-ical metals are imported (figure 1-2) from countrieswith unstable political conditions or where othersupply disruptions could occur for geopolitical rea-sons, e.g., the Republic of South Africa, the So-viet Union, Zimbabwe, Zaire, Zambia, China,Turkey, and Yugoslavia. Even though the occur-rence of some minerals within the EEZ might havea dim economic future during normal periods, anunderstanding of their location, extent, and avail-ability could provide an important cushion underemergency conditions. For shorter, less significantdisruptions, the National Defense Stockpile couldsupplant the loss of some of the imported criticalminerals on which the United States is dependent.

While the immediate challenge to the UnitedStates is to gain a better understanding of the phys-iography and geology of the seafloor and its envi-

Mineral Imports

(Percent)

20 40 60 80 100

J

Value of apparent consumptionand import reliance

Manganese

Yttrium

Platinum

Cobalt

Chromium

Nickel

Tin

Zinc

Silver

Thorium

Barium

Zirconium

Copper

Lead

Titanium

Phosphorus

I I I I I I

1 I1

I 1

I

Net import reliance as apercent of apparent consumption

The United States is reliant on imports of a number of critical minerals that are known to occur on the seafloor within the200-mile U.S. EEZ.

SOURCE J.M Broadus and P. Hoagland, “Marine Minerals and World Resources,” paper presented at the Marine Policy Center, Alumni Symposium, Woods Hole Oceano-graphic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, Apr 5.7, 1987 (modified).


major commercial seabed mining ventures may not

At the current stage of preliminary re-be in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, but ratherin other countries’ waters (small mining operations

source assessment in the EEZ, little cre-dence should be given to estimates of the

have already taken place). In this instance, U.S.innovation and engineering know-how applied to

economic value or tonnages of seabed developing seabed mining technology could placeminerals . . . . the United States in a pivotal competitive position

to exploit a world market (probably modest in size)for seabed mining equipment. Technological inno-

ronment and to inventory minerals occurrences vation in seabed-mining systems could ‘also assistwithin U.S. jurisdiction, the potential value of de- the U. S. industry in maintaining a national capa-veloping and marketing technology for seabed min- bility to deploy such technology in U.S. waters oring and shipboard processing systems should not elsewhere in the world when economic opportuni-be ignored. It is possible—perhaps likely—that the ties arise or if emergencies occur.

MINERAL OCCURRENCES IN THE U.S. EEZ

Only a miniscule portion of the U.S. EEZ hasbeen explored for minerals. However, several typesof mineral deposits are known to occur in variousregions of the U.S. EEZ (figure 1-3). These include:

● Placers—accumulations of sand and/or gravelcontaining gold, platinum, chromite,titanium, and/or other associated minerals.

● Po]ymetallic Sulfides —metal sulfides formedon the seabed from minerals dissolved in su-perheated water near subsea volcanic areas.They commonly contain copper, lead, zinc,and other minerals.

● Ferromanganese Crusts-cobalt-rich manga-nese crusts formed as pavements on the sea-floor on the flanks of seamounts, ridges, andplateaus in the Pacific region. They may alsocontain lesser amounts of other metals suchas copper, nickel, etc.

● Ferromanganese Nodules—similar in compo-sition to ferromanganese crusts, but in theform of small potato-like nodules scattered ran-domly on the surface of the seafloor. Thosefound within the EEZ in the Atlantic Oceantend to be lower in cobalt content than deepocean manganese nodules in the PacificOcean.

● Phosphorite Beds— seaward extensions of on-shore phosphate rock deposits that were laiddown in ancient marine environments.

Since so little is known about the volume in placeand the mineral content (assay) of most seabed de-posits, most deposits are properly termed “occur-rences’ rather than resources. Not much more canbe said about a mineral occurrence other than thata mineral has been identified, perhaps in as littleas one surficial grab sample. A few EEZ mineraldeposits have been investigated enough to betermed ‘ ‘resources, deposits that occur in a formand an amount that economic extraction is poten-tially feasible.

At the current stage of preliminary resourceassessment in the EEZ, little credence should begiven to estimates of the economic value or ton-nages of seabed minerals that have been inferredby some observers. Current information should beinterpreted cautiously to avoid implying a greaterdegree of certainty than is justified by the samplingdensity, sampling design, and analytical techniquesused. Misinterpretation of the results (i. e., by in-ferring that the results of a small number of surfi-cial samples are representative of an extensive,three-dimensional deposit) of preliminary assess-ments can lead to false expectations.

Close-grid, three-dimensional sampling is neededto adequately delineate and quantify mineral de-posits in the seafloor. Sand and gravel, phosphoritebeds, and placers vary in depth below the seabed

Ch.

1—S

umm

ary, Issues,

and O

ptions ●

11

Figure 1·3.-Polenllal Hard Mineral Resources in Ihe EEZ 01 Ihe Conlinenlal United Siales, Alaska, and Hawaii

m Sand and gravel

Wi Ferromanganese nodules

[B Ferromanganese cobalt crusts

~ Phosphorites

Polymelallic sulfide.

Known Placers occurrences

Gold <D P1atinum ® Titanium ® Chromite cD

Likely occurrences

3

4

Juan deFyc.

Blake Plateau

SOURCES: Stfat.eglc AsstSsment Brsl\Ct\, Ocean ASMasments OhtlaiOl'l, Office of Oc$anography and Martrte Asan~t, Natlm'lal Qe$&r'lic aM Atmo$pheric Admlnl3.fratlon; Offlce of Technology Asse:sament; ~d S.J. Williams, 1,.1.$. ~OOi()8! Survey.

—


T O be competitive, marine mineralsprobably must either prove to exist inlarge, high-quality deposits, and/or tobe cheaper to mine and process thantheir onshore counterparts.

and must be sampled by taking cores through manyfeet of sediment and sometimes down to bedrock.Sampling polymetallic sulfides is considerably moredifficult than the other EEZ minerals. The thick-ness of polymetallic sulfide deposits is expected tobe much greater, sometimes extending into thebasement rocks of the seabed. Polymetallic sulfidesare generally found in deeper water, and prohibi-tively expensive hard-rock coring techniques arerequired to adequately sample them. Resource assess-ments of cobalt-manganese crust deposits and man-ganese nodules are on somewhat firmer footing thanplacers or polymetallic sulfides. Nodule and crustdistribution can be observed and visually mapped,while grab samples and shallow coring devices canassess the thickness of these deposits and obtainsamples for chemical analysis.

More is known about sand and gravel than otherhard mineral resources in the U.S. EEZ as a re-sult of extensive sampling by the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers. Although onshore sand and gravelresources in most areas of the United States are am-ple to meet mainland needs for the near future, off-shore deposits of high-quality sand may be locallyimportant in the future, especially in New York andMassachusetts. Geologists have identified severaloffshore areas that have potential for hosting heavymineral placer deposits, although data are still toosparse for compiling resource assessments. Occur-rences of shallow-water mineral placer deposits havebeen identified in both State waters and the Fed-eral EEZ.

One of the most promising areas for titaniumsands and associated minerals in the U.S. EEZ islocated between New Jersey and Florida. On thewest coast, the best prospects for chromite placers,

Only a miniscule portion of the U.S.EEZ has been explored for minerals.

other associated minerals, and perhaps precious me-tals are offshore southern Oregon. In Alaska, goldis being investigated off the Seward Peninsula nearNome where some test mining has occurred, andplatinum has been recovered onshore near Good-news Bay on the Bering Sea, providing some evi-dence that precious metal placers may also lie off-shore; in the Gulf of Alaska, lower Cook Inlet maybe a promising area to prospect for gold.

Phosphorite beds located onshore in North Caro-lina and South Carolina extend seaward in the con-tinental shelf. Extensive phosphorite deposits arefound near the surface of the seabed in the BlakePlateau of the southeastern Atlantic coast, as wellas off southern California.

Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts on the seabedadjacent to the Pacific Islands have piqued the in-terest of an international mining consortium. Dataon the manganese crusts are insufficient to deter-mine the resource potential, to identify a potentialmining site, or to design a mining system. Ferro-manganese nodules are located in the Blake Pla-teau and have been recovered in experimentalquantities while testing deep seabed mining systemsthat were intended for use in the Pacific Ocean.The Blake Plateau nodules are in shallower waterthan those in the Pacific and thus may be more eas-ily mined, but they have lower mineral content.

Polymetallic sulfide deposits located in the vol-canically active Gorda Ridge in the U.S. EEZ andalso located in the Juan de Fuca Ridge, that strad-dles the U.S.-Canadian EEZs off the NorthwesternUnited States, have attracted considerable scien-tific curiosity. Although these deposits are knownto contain large quantities of copper, lead, zinc,and other metals, uncertainties about the quality,composition, and extent of the deposits makes theirresource potential difficult to determine.


MINERALS SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND FUTURE TRENDS

Commodities, materials, and mineral concen-trates— the stuff made from minerals-are tradedin international markets. There is nothing specialor unique about marine minerals that makes themdifferent from those obtained domestically onshoreor from foreign sources. They must, nevertheless,compete for price, quality, and supply reliabilitywith other foreign and domestic mineral suppliers.To be competitive, marine minerals probably musteither prove to exist in large, high-quality depos-its, and/or to be cheaper to mine and process thantheir onshore counterparts. Major questions remainas to where marine minerals may fit in the futureeconomic pecking order of producers.

The commercial potential of marine mineralsfrom the U.S. EEZ is uncertain because develop-ment, when it occurs (or if it occurs in the case ofsome minerals), is likely to be in the distant future.It is difficult to foresee the future of marine mineralsfor several reasons:

●

●

●

●

●

Little is known about the extent and grade ofthe mineral occurrences that have been iden-tified in the EEZ.Little actual experience and few pilot opera-tions are available to evaluate seabed miningcosts and operational uncertainties.Erratic performance of the domestic and globaleconomies adds uncertainty to forecasts ofminerals demand.Changing technologies can cause unforeseenshifts between demand and supply of mineralsand materials.Past experience indicates that methods for pro-jecting or forecasting minerals demand are notdependable.

Materials are constantly competing with oneanother for applications in goods and industrialprocesses. Total consumption of a mineral com-modity is determined by the amount (volume ornumber) of goods consumed and by the amountof a commodity used in manufacturing each unit.The former is linked to the vitality of the economyand customer preference, while the latter is relatedto technological trends which also may be relatedto economic factors. Substitution of new or differ-ent materials, conservation through more efficient

manufacturing, and recycling of used materials canreduce the demand for virgin materials.

Major changes in domestic and world economies,coupled with technological advancements andchanges in consumer attitudes, have significantly

altered consumption trends beginning in the late1970s and continuing through the present. For mostof the commodities derived from marine minerals,the amount used relative to the goods produced hasdecreased for chromium, cobalt, manganese, tin,zinc, lead, and nickel from 1972 to 1982. Onlyplatinum and titanium increased in use intensity.Consumption of goods and consequently the de-mand for mineral commodities used to produce thegoods —with the exception of platinum and titani-um—also decreased (but less abruptly than use in-tensity) during the same period,

Mining capacity increased—particularly in themineral-rich Third World—in the early 1970s whenmineral prices were high, consumption strong, andthe economic outlook bright. In the 1980s, demandsoftened, prices dropped, and the world economyslowed, causing significant excess world mining ca-pacity for most of the minerals that occur in theU.S. EEZ. It is unknown whether technologicaltrends toward miniaturization, substitution, andlower intensity of use of the commodities derivedfrom marine minerals will continue in the future,or whether domestic and world economic growthwill rebound to new heights or merely continuesluggishly on the current course. These uncertain-ties will affect the utilization of existing capacityand determine the need for new mineral develop-ment in the future, including minerals from theseabed.

As a result of excess world capacity, the U.S.minerals and mining industry has met with sub-stantial foreign competition. Metals prices remainlow, and, until recently, production costs in theUnited States and Canada have been well abovethe world average for copper, zinc, lead, and othermetals used in large industrial quantities. Compe-tition from low-cost foreign producers, with advan-tages of lower capital and operating costs and highergrade ores, have resulted in a depressed domestic


mining industry, a trend that accelerated in theearly 1980s.

Foreign producers, including state-owned orstate-controlled companies, are likely to continueto be the measure of competition that must be metby both domestic onshore and offshore producers.Only when seabed mine production is the least costsource with respect to both domestic and foreignonshore producers and even foreign offshore pro-ducers will it become commercially viable.

Manganese, chromium, and nickel are alloyingelements that are used to impart specific proper-ties to steel and other metals. Their demand isclosely tied to the production of steel; they are usu-ally added to molten metal as a ferroalloy or as anintermediate product of iron enriched with the al-loying element. There are no domestic reserves(proven economic resources) of manganese or chro-mium; therefore, the United States must importsubstantially all of these alloying metals.

A decade ago, concentrated ores were importedfor conversion to ferromanganese and ferrochro-mium by U.S. ferroalloy firms to supply a then-robust domestic steel industry. Since 1981, theUnited States has imported more finished ferro-chromium than it has chromite ore, and a similarpattern has developed with ferromanganese. For-eign producers now supply U.S. markets with about90 percent of the ferrochromium consumed for thedomestic manufacture of chromium steel. Chro-mite-producing countries are now converting oreto finished ferroalloy and gaining the value addedthrough the manufacturing process before export-ing to consumers. There is currently no existingdomestic capacity to produce ferromanganese.

U.S. steel production has also declined in favorof cheaper imports. With decreases in both U.S.ferroalloy production and iron and steel produc-tion, demand for chromium and manganese ores(manganese is also used to desulfurize steel) for do-mestic ferroalloys is likely to continue to diminish.The United States is fast approaching total depen-dence on foreign processing capacity of ferroalloys.Even if EEZ chromite heavy sands off southernOregon were to prove economically recoverable,

there are no ferroalloy furnaces in the Pacific North-west to process the chromite produced. Any offshorechromite recovered probably would be used for theproduction of sodium bichromate, the major chem-ical derivative of chromium.

Titanium metal is used extensively in aerospaceapplications, and its use in industrial applicationsis expected to expand in the future. Heavy mineralsands in the EEZ off the Southeastern Atlantic Statescontain substantial concentrations of ilmenite, atitanium-bearing mineral. Although ilmenite canbe converted to titanium metal through an inter-mediate process (alteration to synthetic rutile), theadded expense might make it uneconomical. Themost probable use for ilmenite recovered from theAtlantic EEZ would be as titanium pigments, sincetwo major plants currently operate in northernFlorida using locally mined onshore minerals; over30 percent of world’s titanium pigment productionis in the United States.

About 90 percent of the phosphate rock minedin the United States goes for the production of agri-cultural fertilizers. Most of the remainder is usedto manufacture detergents and cleaners. Phosphateis abundant throughout the world, but only a smallproportion is of commercial importance, Offshorephosphorites are similar to those that are mined inthe coastal plain onshore. The United States his-torically has been the leading producer of phosphaterock, but its preeminence is now challenged bycheaper foreign producers.

Precious metals-gold, platinum-group—are ina class of their own. By definition, they are lessabundant and more difficult to find and recoverthan other minerals, hence their enhanced value.Both are used to some extent in manufacturing, theplatinum-group metals are used most widely. De-mand for the platinum-group is expected to increasein the future as Europe, Australia, and Japan adoptautomobile emission controls that use platinum asa catalyst. Gold remains a standard of wealth, andis used for jewelry. Both platinum and gold are sub-ject to the whims of speculators who respond to an-ticipated economic changes, market trends, worldpolitical conditions, and other factors; therefore,prices can change abruptly and unpredictably.


OUTLOOK FOR DEVELOPMENT OFSELECTED OFFSHORE MINERALS

OTA has assessed the potential for near-term de-velopment of selected minerals found within U.S.coastal waters. Costs of offshore mining will deter-mine its competitive position with regard to onshoresources of the same minerals in the United Statesand abroad. For most offshore minerals, the near-term prospects for development do not appearpromising. Although only minor new developmentsin technology will be required to mine offshoreplacer deposits or phosphorite, costs for offshoremining equipment are likely to be higher than cap-ital costs for onshore operations. Some of the fac-tors that will increase costs include the need for sea-worthy mining vessels and possible requirementsfor motion compensating devices and navigationaland positioning equipment.

In addition to greater capital costs, operatingcosts for offshore mining typically will be higherthan for onshore operations. Occasional adverseweather conditions will undoubtedly reduce thenumber of days per year during which mining isfeasible. For most offshore settings, mining ratesof 300 days per year are considered optimistic. Thenecessity of transporting to shore (possibly greatdistances) either raw or beneficiated ore for finalprocessing is another factor that may increase oper-ating costs relative to costs for onshore operations.On the other hand, siting offshore mining equip-ment is easier and less expensive than for onshorefacilities.

Sufficient data are not available with which tomake detailed cost estimates of typical future off-shore mining operations. However, first approxi-mations of profitability can provide insights intothe competitiveness of offshore relative to onshoremining. OTA has developed mining scenarios forfour types of hypothetical marine mineral depositsin areas where concentrations of potentially valu-able minerals are known to occur. The depositsevaluated include titanium-rich sands off the Geor-gia coast, chromite-rich sands off the Oregon coast,phosphorite off the North Carolina and Georgiacoasts, and gold off the Alaska coast near Nome.

Titanium

OTA’s analysis of offshore titanium sand min-ing indicates that it is not very promising in thenear term. Nevertheless, there has been some com-mercial interest shown in these deposits. The re-covery of ilmenite alone from an offshore placerdoes not appear economically feasible and will notbe feasible unless primary concentrate can be de-livered to an onshore processing plant at costs com-parable to those incurred in producing the equiva-lent titanium minerals from an onshore placerdeposit. To be competitive, the offshore depositwould have to contain considerable amounts ofhigher valued heavy minerals like rutile (valued at$350 to $500 per ton) or other more valuableminerals, e, g., zircon, monazite, or precious me-tals. Such deposits have not yet been identified.

Chromite

Mining and processing chromite-rich sands showresults similar to those obtained for titanium. Forchromite, revenues of about $125 per ton wouldbe required to realize a 3-year payback on invest-ment. The average price of low-grade, nonrefrac-tory chromite concentrate imported into the UnitedStates during the first half of 1986 was $40 per ton,exclusive of import duties, freight, insurance, andother charges. Production of chromite alone, there-fore, would not meet revenue requirements. Thepresence of higher valued minerals, such as gold,could improve the profitability of mining offshorechromite sands if revenues from the sale of coprod-ucts exceeded the costs of their separation.

With excess capacity in the world’s ferroalloy in-dustry, it is unlikely that a viable U.S. ferrochro-mium installation could survive foreign competi-tion. It is possible that the Oregon chromite sandsmight be used for the manufacture of sodium di-chromate, the major industrial chromium chemi-cal. A west coast “green field” plant probablywould have to be built for this purpose to offset thetransportation costs of shipping to existing east coastchemical plants.


Phosphorite

The economic outlook for offshore phosphoritemining is not especially promising either. In thepast, the United States led world phosphate rockproduction with onshore mining in northern Floridaand North Carolina; now the United States is be-ing challenged by Morocco, which has immensehigh-grade reserves judged to be capable of satis-fying world demand far into the future. The pros-pect that mining of U.S. offshore phosphoritescould successfully compete with low-cost Moroc-can phosphate rock or other possible low-cost for-eign producers is considered remote. However, do-mestic onshore producers have met considerableopposition because of potential environmental dis-turbance and land use conflicts. The offshore ma-rine deposits of North Carolina and other South-eastern States might become more competitive withdomestic onshore production in the future if envi-ronmental and land use problems become insur-mountable.

Gold

Offshore gold placer mining near Nome, Alaska,appears more promising. In fact, Inspiration Mineshas already undertaken pilot mining and is plan-ning to begin full-scale gold mining with a con-verted tin dredge from southeast Asia. Some of thedata OTA used in estimating capital and operat-ing costs for this project were provided by Inspira-tion Mines; thus, some of the assumptions used inthe gold offshore mining scenario are consideredmore reliable.

Assuming the price of gold to be $400 per ounce(a conservative assumption in July 1987, but theprice of gold is subject to wide swings), the pro-jected pre-tax cash flow on the estimated produc-tion of 48,000 ounces of gold per year would beapproximately $19 million. This figure indicatesthat the offshore gold mining project at Nome showsgood promise of profitability if the operators areable to maintain production. Note, however, thatoffshore mining will be possible only about 5 monthsper year, because ice on Norton Sound prohibitsoperations during the winter months. The dura-tion of yearly ice cover (as well as the fluctuatingprice of gold) will have a significant effect on theprofitability of this operation.

With the exceptions of sand and graveland precious metals, the commercialprospects for developing marine min-erals within the EEZ appear to be re-mote for the foreseeable future.

Sand and Gravel

The least valuable marine minerals by volumeare sand and gravel. However, these resources mayhave the most immediate competitive position inrelation to onshore supplies. Although onshore sandand gravel resources are immense, coarse sand issometimes hard to find and land use restrictionsincreasingly prohibit access to suitable resources.Some limited offshore mining of sand and gravelis taking place. Sand and gravel is a high-volume,low-value commodity where short-haul transpor-tation is important. Around high-growth, high-density areas in the Northeast and on the west coast,marine sand and gravel might soon prove profita-ble to mine.

Deep-Sea Minerals

OTA did not estimate the potential for near-termexploitation of ferromanganese nodules, cobalt-richferromanganese crusts, or polymetallic sulfides. Re-covery of ferromanganese nodules (which includecopper, nickel, and manganese) from the deepseafloor beyond the U.S. EEZ has been studied bythe industry, the National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration (NOAA), and the MineralsManagement Service (MMS). Prototype technologyhas been designed and tested, but plans to minenodule resources in the central Pacific Ocean havebeen on hold pending favorable economic con-ditions.

Even less is known about the economic poten-tial for recovery of cobalt-rich crusts (within the Ha-waiian EEZ) or polymetallic sulfide deposits (withinthe U.S. EEZ off Oregon and northern California)than about the potential for recovery of nodule orplacer deposits. Technology has not yet been de-veloped for mining these deposits nor does suffi-cient information about the nature of the deposits

Ch. 1—Summary, Issues, and Options 17

The job of exploring the U.S. EEZ isimmense, difficult, and expensive . . .[it] is not an activity that is likely to beundertaken by the private sector in re-sponse to market forces.

exist to permit meaningful estimates of future eco-nomic potential to be made, More data about thephysical characteristics of cobalt crusts and poly-metallic sulfides are needed before mining conceptscan be refined and mining costs estimated. An in-ternational consortium is studying the potential formining cobalt-rich crusts in the Johnston IslandEEZ, but near-term incentives for mining crustsand sulfides do not exist.

It is risky to attempt to rank the future potentialfor development of marine minerals in the EEZ be-cause of shortfalls in resource data. Nevertheless,an assessment based on what is known of the na-ture and extent of the mineral occurrences, cou-pled with insights into mineral commodity marketsand trends, suggests the following rank ‘‘guesti-mate” for the probable order of development:

1.2.3.

4.5.6.

sand and gravelprecious metal placers,titanium and chromite placers and phos-phorite,ferromanganese nodules,cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, andpolymetallic sulfides.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR EXPLORING THE SEABED

The job of exploring the U.S. EEZ is immense,difficult, and expensive. The job is not an activitythat is likely to be undertaken by the private sectorin response to market forces. In its initial reconnais-sance stages, it is largely a government responsi-bility. As knowledge narrows the targets of oppor-tunity to those of economic potential, commercialinterest may then motivate entrepreneurs to explorein more detail. But without the first efforts by theFederal Government, both the scientific commu-nity and industry will be unable or unwilling tolaunch an effective, broad-scale explorationprogram.

Technological capabilities for exploring the sea-bed in detail are currently available and in use.These range from reconnaissance technologies thatprovide relatively coarse, general information aboutvery large areas to site-specific technologies thatprovide information about increasingly smallerareas of the seafloor. A common strategy is to usethese technologies in the manner of a zoom lens,that is, by focusing on progressively smaller areaswith increasing detail.

Among the reconnaissance technologies availableare echo-sounding instruments capable of accu-rately determining the depth of the seafloor and

producing computer-drawn bathymetric chartsshowing the form and topography of the bottom.Side-looking sonar devices produce photo-like im-ages that can reveal interesting features and pat-terns on the seafloor. These technologies can becombined in one piece of equipment or used simul-taneously to survey broad swaths of the seafloorwhile a vessel is underway, thus providing near-perfect registry between the sonar and bathymet-ric data. Broad-scale coverage of side-looking so-nar imagery for most of the U.S. EEZ soon willbe available from the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS). However, high-resolution, multi-beambathymetric data collected by NOAA will takemuch longer to acquire. Moreover, the future ofNOAA’s bathymetric charting program is uncer-tain, since the Navy considers the data to be of suffi-cient quality to classify for national security reasons.

Seismic technologies, which are used extensivelyby the offshore petroleum industry, can detect struc-tural and stratigraphic features below the seabedwhich can aid geological interpretation. New three-dimensional seismic techniques, although very ex-pensive, can enhance the usefulness of seismic in-formation. Gravimeters can detect differences inthe density of rocks, leading to estimates of crustalrock types and thicknesses. Magnetometers provide

18 . Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier

The military value of some EEZ datamight require restrictions on access anduse of certain information for nationalsecurity reasons.

information about the magnetic field and may beused offshore to map sediments and rocks contain-ing magnetite and other iron-rich minerals. Bothof these technologies are also used for oil and gasexploration. Data can be collected rapidly by mov-ing vessels and stored in retrievable form.

Other technologies may also be used to explorethe EEZ. Some, like many electrical techniques,are proven technologies for land-based explorationwhich have been adapted for ocean use, but havenot been widely tested in the marine environment.Induced polarization, for example, has potential forlocating titanium placer deposits and for perform-ing rapid, real-time, shipboard analyses of coresamples. Nuclear techniques may also prove use-ful for identifying such minerals as phosphorite,monazite, and zircon that emit radiation.

When the focus of attention narrows to prospec-tive targets of interest on the seafloor, direct visualobservation is often useful. Manned submersiblesand/or remotely operated undersea vehicles (ROVs),similar to those used for locating the Titanic in1986, may come into play. Remotely operatedcameras capable of observing, transmitting, andrecording photographic images have proved valu-able exploration tools.

Direct sampling of seabed minerals for assess-ment presents special problems. In some cases, itis possible (as has been done with the research sub-mersible Alvin to recover limited samples of seabedminerals using manned submersibles or ROVs).A number of devices have been developed to re-trieve a sample of unconsolidated sediment, but feware capable of extracting undisturbed samples thatreflect the mineral concentrations contained in the

seabed deposit. Many of the sediment coring de-vices were designed for scientific use, and few arecapable of economically and efficiently recoveringthe large number of samples that are needed to ac-curately determine the commercial feasibility of arefine mineral deposit and to delineate a mine site.,

Quantitative sampling of hard-rock deposits,e.g., ferromanganese crusts and polymetallic sul-fides, is economically infeasible with existing tech-nology. While large drill ships (e. g., the JoidesResolution) used in the Ocean Drilling Project orthose used by the offshore petroleum industry, arecapable of drilling and extracting cores from hardbasaltic rock, their cost is prohibitive for extensive,high-density sampling of the kind needed to assessa mineral deposit. It may prove easier to developa practical sampling device for thin ferromanganesecrusts than for the thicker, less regular, polymetallicsulfides.


TECHNOLOGIES FOR MINING AND PROCESSINGMARINE MINERALS

Existing or modified dredge mining sys-tems could place many potential placerdeposits in the range of technical ex-ploitability.

From table-flat, heavy mineral sand placers de-posited in shallow water to mounds and chimneysof rock-like polymetallic sulfides at depths of overa mile, marine minerals present a variety of chal-lenges to the design, development, and operationof marine mining systems. Development and cap-ital costs for vessels and marine systems can be high.Profitability of offshore mining ventures will hingeon whether safe and efficient mining systems canbe built and operated at reasonable costs. With theexception of conversions of onshore dredge min-ing equipment for shallow, protected water offshoreand work done on deep seabed manganese nodulemining systems, there has been little developmenteffort thus far.

Dredge mining technology is used extensively forharbor and channel dredging in coastal waters andfor onshore mining of phosphate rock and heavymineral sands. It has also been used for mining tinin coastal waters in Asia and is currently being usedin pilot mining of gold in State waters near Nome,Alaska.

In deeper waters subject to winds, waves, swells,and currents, specially designed mining dredgesmust be developed. High endurance dredges fordeep waters must be self-powered, seaworthy plat-

DREDGES WHICH OPERATE HYDRAULICALLY

forms with motion compensating systems and maybe equipped with onboard mineral processing plantsand storage capacity. Conceptual designs of suchequipment are being readied. The design of eventhe most sophisticated dredge probably can beachieved without major new technological break-throughs. Cost will be the most important limit-ing factor.

The maximum practical operating depth for mostdredging systems is about 300 feet from the sur-face of the water to the bottom of the excavationon the seafloor. Airlift systems can be used on suc-tion dredges to lift unconsolidated material frommuch greater depths. Existing or modified dredgemining systems could place many potential placerdeposits in the range of technical exploitability.

Solution or borehole mining has been tested innorth Florida land-based phosphate rock depositsas a means to reduce surface disturbance and envi-ronmental impacts. The technique involves sink-ing a shaft into the phosphorite deposit, jettingwater into the borehole, and pumping the result-ing slurry to the surface. Although the techniquehas not yet been tested under marine conditions,some mining engineers speculate that it could havepotential for offshore phosphorite mining.

Several preliminary mining systems have beensketched out for recovering ferromanganese crustsas well as for mining polymetallic sulfide deposits,but little if any development work has proceededin either area. Collection and airlift recovery sys-tems developed for deep seabed manganese nod-ules may be adaptable to mining both crusts andpolymetallic sulfides. Too little is known about the

DREDGES WHICH OPERATE MECHANICALLY

Dredge TechnologiesDredge technologies are well developed and proven through years of experience. Adaptation of inshore dredgemining systems for offshore use could make the technical exploitability of some heavy mineral placer depositspossible if seabed mining is found to be economically competitive.

Source: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987


nature and extent of the deposits to allow the de-velopment of prototype mining systems at this time.

Mineral processing technology has evolvedthrough centuries of experience with onshoreminerals, although such techniques have not beenwidely applied at sea. No major technologicalbreakthroughs are considered to be needed to adaptonshore processing technologies to shipboard use,but considerable uncertainty remains about thecosts and efficiency of operating a minerals proc-essing plant at sea.

Shore-based v. at-sea minerals processing will bea trade-off that a seabed mining enterprise mustconsider. If shipboard processing is installed, it maybe cheaper to transport smaller amounts of high-grade processed ore (beneficiated) than to haul largevolumes of unprocessed ore containing as much as85 to over 90 percent waste material to an onshoreprocessing plant. Economic conditions that wouldinfluence such a decision could vary for each case.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Little direct experience exists with com-mercial offshore mining with which toestimate the potential for environmentalharm.

Little direct experience exists with commercialoffshore mining with which to estimate the poten-tial for environmental harm. Even channel and har-bor dredging operations or recovery of sand forbeach nourishment, which have been studied insome detail, are sporadic operations and do not re-flect the impacts that could result from long-termplacer dredge mining operations that would moveconsiderably more material from a larger area ofthe seafloor. Less is known about impacts to deepwater environments than shallow water envi-ronments.

Physical disturbance from dredge mining oper-ations will consist of removing a layer of theseafloor, conveying it to the surface, and reinject-ing the unwanted material onto the seabed. Themining operation will generate a transient ‘‘plume’of sediment that will affect the surface, the watercolumn, and adjacent areas of the oceanfloor foran uncertain period of time.

Experience with sand and gravel mining in Eur-ope and with the dredging operations of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers suggests that as long assensitive areas (e. g., fish spawning and nursery

grounds) are avoided, surface and mid-water ef-fects from either shallow or deep water miningshould be minimal and transient. Benthic commu-nities assuredly will be destroyed if mined, andsome nearby areas may be adversely affected bysediment returning to the seafloor, However, min-ing equipment can be designed to minimize suchdamage, and, except where rare animals occur, en-tire benthic populations are eliminated, or the sub-strate is permanently altered, the seafloor shouldrecolonize. Recolonization is expected to take placequickly in high-energy, shallow water communi-ties, but very slowly in deep-sea areas. If any at-sea processing of the mined material occurs —withsubsequent discharge of chemicals-negative im-pacts would possibly be more severe.

It is not scientifically or economically feasible toresearch ecological baseline information on all ofthe marine environments that may be affected byseabed mining. Furthermore, the consequences ofthe range of possible mining scenarios are unknown.Anticipating and avoiding high-risk, sensitive areasand mitigating damage through improved equip-ment design and operating procedures can reducethe impacts from offshore mining. Environmentalmonitoring during the mining process will providean additional margin of safety and add to the knowl-edge of what effects seabed mining might have onthe marine environment as well. Concurrent ob-servations in undisturbed control areas similar tothose being mined could also provide an under-standing of the processes at work.


Anticipating and avoiding high-risk,sensitive areas and mitigating damagethrough improved equipment designand operating procedures can reduce theimpacts from offshore mining.

What effects might extensive mining in shallowwaters have on the coastline? The removal of largequantities of sand and gravel or placers in near-shore areas might alter the coastline and aggravatecoastal erosion by altering waves and tides. Experi-ence with sand removal off Grand Isle, Louisiana,for beach replenishment suggests that the miningof even small areas to substantial depths may causeserious damage to the shoreline. This potentialproblem requires considerably more investigation.

More, too, should be learned about the struc-ture and energetic of deep-sea communities. How-ever, to do so requires expensive submersibles andelaborate sampling equipment because of the dif-ficulty of operating at great depths.

A considerable amount of environmental dataalready has been collected by a number of Federalagencies as part of their missions. Much of the in-formation remains in the files of each agency, andonly a small part finds its way into the public liter-ature. Some of this environmental informationcould be useful in planning offshore mining oper-ations. The public investment in such environ-mental information represents hundreds of millions

COLLECTING AND MANAGING OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA

Several Federal agencies share responsibility forexploring various aspects of the U.S. EEZ. In addi-tion, coastal States, oceanographic institutions, aca-demic institutions, and private industry also con-tribute information and data about the Nation’soffshore areas. All of these institutions, except theprivate firms, are funded primarily with publicfunds. The overall investment in collecting oceano-graphic data related to exploring the EEZ is nottrivial, nor are the problems of coordinating explo-ration efforts and archiving the results.

At a time when the Federal Government is strug-gling to reduce the Federal budget deficit, it is im-portant to ensure that Federal agencies coordinatetheir complementary and overlapping functions andpromote a spirit of cooperation among investiga-tors that will encourage efficiency and responsibil-ity, With regard to EEZ exploratory programs,there have been notable and unprecedented achieve-ments in cooperation and communication betweenthe Department of the Interior (DOI) and NOAAduring the last few years. USGS and NOAA have


agreed to a division of effort in EEZ explorationand have taken steps to create a joint office to takethe lead in integrating information from govern-ment and private sources. However, the MineralsManagement Service, with responsibility for man-aging the Outer Continental Shelf mineral resources,and the Bureau of Mines, with responsibility formining and minerals research and investigations,are not formally linked to the USGS-NOAA co-operative agreement.

About a dozen Federal agencies administer pro-grams related to the exploration and investigationof the EEZ. The oceanographic and resource dataproduced by the numerous Federal programs andaugmented by similar data collected by States, in-dustry, and academic institutions make up an im-pressive body of information. The data sets are ofhighly variable quality and were collected in differ-ent places over different time periods. Some of thesedata are available to other researchers and the pub-lic through formal and informal exchanges amongthe institutions; other data, however, are lessaccessible.

As exploration of the EEZ increases in intensity,data management problems will worsen. Moderninstruments, such as multi-beam echo-sounders,satellites, and multi-channel seismic reflection re-corders, produce streams of digital data at high ratesof speed. To succeed, a national exploration effortin the EEZ must effectively deal with the problemsof compiling, archiving, manipulating, and dissem-inating a range of digital data and graphic infor-mation. Historically, Federal agencies have spentproportionately more on collecting the data thanon archiving and managing databases comparedto their counterparts in the private sector. Indus-try managers consider data collected in the courseof investigations to be capital assets with futurevalue; in general, the Federal agencies seem to con-sider data more as an inventory of limited long-term value and hence have spent less on data man-agement.

There is no governmentwide policy for archiv-ing and disseminating oceanographic data to sec-ondary users. The National Science Foundation’sOcean Sciences Division has taken steps to ensurethat data collected in the course of research it fundsare submitted to NOAA’s National Environmental

Modern multi-beam echo-sounding systems and computermapping technologies can produce accurate topographicmaps of the deep seabed, Mapping is the first step towarda systematic program for exploring the EEZ.

SOURCE: Naval Research Laboratory

Satellite, Data, and Information System. There aretwo national data centers that act as libraries foroceanographic and geophysical data: 1) NationalOceanographic Data Center, and 2) National Geo-physical Data Center. Both are managed by NOAA.Data at the centers are acquired from Federal agen-cies under interagency agreements; some agenciesare more responsive and reliable in forwarding datato the centers than are others.

Funds for the centers have never been adequateto provide effective oceanographic data services tosecondary users in industry, academia, or Stategovernments. As a result of chronically inadequatefunding, the centers are neither able to acquire ex-isting data sets that have intrinsic historical base-line value nor to preserve and store but a relativelysmall proportion of the new data that are currentlybeing produced. Oceanographic data discarded forlack of storage facilities is a government asset lostforever.

Detailed charts of the seafloor, such as thoseproduced by multi-beam echo-sounding instruments(e.g., Sea Beam), are considered to be invaluabletools for geologists and geophysicists exploring the

Ch. 1—Summary, Issues, and Options ● 2 3

EEZ. Unfortunately, they are also considered tobe invaluable tools for navigating and positioningpotential hostile submarines within the EEZ. As aconsequence, the U.S. Navy has taken steps to clas-sify and restrict the public dissemination of high-resolution bathymetric charts produced by NOAA’sNational Ocean Services in the EEZ.

NOAA’s plans for exploring the EEZ includebroad-scale, atlas-like coverage of the EEZ withhigh-resolution bathymetry. The plan is applaudedby the academic community, but the Navy, con-cerned about the national security implications ofpublic release of such data, opposes NOAA’s planunless security can be assured. Negotiations be-tween NOAA and the Navy continue in an attemptto resolve the classification issue. Suggestions bythe Navy that bathymetric data may be skewed oraltered in a random fashion to reduce its strategicusefulness have been met by protests from the re-search community that claim its usefulness for re-search also would be reduced.

There is little doubt that the Navy’s strategic con-cern over the value of high-resolution bathymetryto potentially hostile forces is well founded. How-ever, critics of the Navy’s position cite mitigatingfactors that they consider to undermine the Navy’ssecurity argument, such as the availability of multi-beam technology in foreign vessels; the U.S. pol-icy of open access for research in the EEZ, whichwould allow foreign vessels to gather similar data;and the stringent criteria for classification estab-lished by the Navy that could include existingbathymetric charts that have been in the public do-main for some time.

The importance of high-resolution bathymetryto efficient exploration of the EEZ is apparent. Boththe Navy and the scientific community have failedto effectively communicate their concerns to each

other. To ensure that the scientific community hasaccess to precise bathymetry to facilitate the explo-ration of the EEZ and at the same time to protectthe national security, a flexible policy must beagreed to and supported by all parties. Undoubt-edly, there will be appreciable financial costs con-

nected to such a policy, but it should be consid-ered a cost of doing the government’s business inthe modern, high-technology research envi-ronment.

Before the marine mining industry will investsubstantially in commercial prospecting in the EEZ,it must have assurances that the Federal Govern-ment will encourage development and grant accessto the private sector to explore and develop seabedminerals. While the Outer Continental Shelf LandsAct authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease

non-energy minerals as well as oil and gas in theOuter Continental Shelf, little guidance is providedby the legislation for structuring a hard mineralleasing program. There also is disagreement as towhether the Secretary’s mineral leasing authoritycan be extended to areas beyond the limits of thecontinental shelf in the EEZ. Furthermore, the bid-ding requirements for hard mineral leases, whichrequire advance payment of money before a minesite is delineated, may not be workable for EEZhard minerals. New marine mining legislation isneeded to ensure the seabed mining industry thatit will have a suitable Federal leasing program inplace when it is needed.

SUMMARY AND FINDINGS

With a few possible exceptions (e. g., sand andgravel and precious metals), the commercial pros-pects for developing marine minerals within the Ex-clusive Economic Zone appear to be remote for theforeseeable future. There is currently no operationaldomestic seabed mining industry per se, althoughsome international mining consortia have a con-tinuing interest in deep seabed manganese nodulesand perhaps cobalt-manganese crusts in the EEZ.

One land-based mining company is currently oper-ating a gold mining dredge in Alaskan State waters,and sand is being mined at the entrance to New

York Harbor. Commercial interest in some near-shore placer deposits and Blake Plateau manganesenodules has occurred sporadically. Because of theeconomic uncertainties and financial risks of EEZmining, it is doubtful that the private sector willundertake substantial exploration in the EEZ until


Advances in mapping technology have provided oceanographers with valuable detailed information about the depthsand topography of the seafloor. However, the accuracy and precision of multi-beam and echo-sounding also makes the

maps valuable for military navigation and positioning. (Old technology on this page; new technology opposite).

Source: National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA

more is known about marine minerals. Preliminaryreconnaissance and exploration by the Federalagencies to determine mining opportunities, as wellas assurances from Congress that the Federal Gov-ernment will provide an appropriate administra-tive framework and economic climate to conductbusiness offshore, probably will be needed to in-terest the private sector in further prospecting andpossible development.

The possible strategic importance of some EEZminerals is additional justification for the UnitedStates to maintain momentum in exploring its off-shore public domain. We know too little about themineral resource potential of the EEZ to judge itslong-term commercial viability or its strategic valuein supplying critical minerals in times of emer-gency. A time may come, however, when it isjudged that it is vital to the Nation that the Fed-

eral Government indirectly or directly support theoffshore mining industry to maintain a competi-tive, strategic position in seabed mining relative toEuropean countries, Japan, and other industrialnations.

The vastness of the U.S. EEZ requires that ex-ploration proceed according to well-thought-outplans and priorities. Federal agencies will have tocoordinate efforts, share equipment, and collaboratein a collegial atmosphere. Academicians, State per-sonnel, and scientists and engineers from privateindustry also will be major participants in the Fed-eral EEZ exploration program. To achieve thisextraordinary level of collaboration inside and out-side the Federal Government, a broad-based co-ordinating mechanism is likely to be needed to tiethe various public, academic, and private sectorEEZ activities together.

ISSUES AND OPTIONS

Although EEZ exploration costs could be largein the aggregate, there are several possible low-costactions that Congress might take along the way to

bolster the national effort by focusing the govern-ment exploration effort and improving Federalagency performance through better communica-tion, coordination, and planning. The major needsof the fledgling U.S. ocean mining industry mightbe best met through appropriate legislation aimedat providing a suitable Federal administrative man-agement framework.

Focusing the National Exploration Effort

Responsibility for various aspects of EEZ min-erals exploration is shared by several Federal agen-cies: U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Minerals Manage-ment Service, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Navy,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Aeronau-tics and Space Administration, Department ofEnergy, Environmental Protection Agency, Na-

tional Science Foundation, and several other con-tributing agencies. Moreover, the major academicoceanographic institutions—Scripps Institution ofOceanography, Woods Hole Oceanographic Insti-tution, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory—play a key role in the pursuit of scientific knowl-edge about the seafloor and the ocean environment,as do a large number of marine scientists at manyuniversities and colleges throughout the country.

State agency efforts, though modest in compar-ison to the Federal programs, are focused on the3-mile territorial sea under the coastal State’s con-

72-672 0 - 87 -- 2


. . . it is important to ensure that Fed-eral agencies coordinate their comple-mentary and overlapping functions. . . .

trol and provide an important adjunct to the Fed-eral exploration efforts. The offshore mining in-dustry’s stake in the outcome of the Federal EEZexploration program also necessitates that the in-dustry be a major contributor to national EEZplanning.

With the large number of actors involved in col-lecting EEZ information, it is important that theirefforts be focused and coordinated through a na-tional exploration plan-yet no such planning proc-ess currently exists. In an effort to coordinate EEZactivities in NOAA and USGS, these two agenciesrecently established a joint EEZ office (Joint Of-fice for Mapping and Research) to foster commu-nication between them and to establish an EEZpoint of contact for the public. The joint EEZ of-fice is a positive step towards coordination, but itsactivities apply principally to the sponsoring agen-cies and there is no separate funding for this office.

MMS also has made efforts to improve commu-nications and information transfer with the coastalStates regarding anticipated offshore mineral leas-ing in the EEZ. State-Federal working groups havebeen organized for cobalt crusts off Hawaii; poly-metallic sulfides and placers off Washington, Ore-gon, and California; phosphorites off North Caro-lina; heavy mineral sands off Georgia; and placersin the Gulf of Mexico. Such efforts to coordinateFederal EEZ activities are good as far as they go,but they fall short of providing the comprehensivefocus needed to integrate the full range of govern-ment activities with those of the States, academicinstitutions, and the seabed mining industry.

Faced with a similar planning and coordinationproblem in Arctic research, Congress enacted theArctic Research and Policy Act (Public Law 98-373) in 1984. The Act established an InteragencyArctic Research Policy Committee composed of the10 key agencies involved in Arctic research, Aparallel organization, the Arctic Research Commis-sion, was concurrently established to represent the

academic community, State and private interests,and residents of the Arctic and to advise the Fed-eral Government. The Federal Interagency ArcticResearch Policy Committee and the Arctic Re-search Commission are charged with developing5-year Arctic research plan which includes goals andpriorities. Budget requests for funding of Arctic re-search for each Federal agency under the plan areto be considered by the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) as a single “integrated, coherent,and multi-agency request’ (Sec. 110). The ArcticResearch and Policy Act does not authorize addi-tional funding for Arctic research. Each Federalagency designates a portion of its proposed bud-get for “Arctic research” for the purpose of OMBreview.

Congress opted for a similar solution to coordi-nate multi-agency research activities in acid pre-cipitation. Title VII of the Energy Security Act of1980 (Public Law 96-294) established an Acid Pre-cipitation Task Force, consisting of 12 Federalagencies, 4 National Laboratories, and 4 presiden-tial appointees from the public. The Task Force wasassigned responsibility for developing and manag-ing a 10-year research plan. Funds ($5 million) wereauthorized by the Act to underwrite the cost of de-veloping the plan and to support the Task Force.Research funds requested by the Federal agencies(comprising each agency’s acid precipitation re-search budgets) are combined annually into a Na-tional Acid Precipitation Assessment Program bud-get that is submitted to OMB as a unit.

Both the Arctic Research and Policy Act and Ti-tle VII of the Energy Security Act may be consid-ered prototypes for focusing, planning, budgeting,and coordinating Federal exploration and researchactivities in the EEZ. Neither Act has proved tobe expensive, nor has either unduly encroached onthe autonomy, jurisdiction, or missions of the in-dividual agencies. Neither Act authorizes or ear-marks special funds for its intended purposes (ex-cept to offset the cost of plans and administration),but collective budgets are presented to OMB alongwith plans and programs to justify the expenditureof the requested funds. Both approaches build inparticipation from the general public and the pri-vate sector in developing research plans.

Another approach to interagency planning andcoordination is used for marine pollution. The Na-


tional Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978 (PublicLaw 95-273) designates NOAA as the lead agencyfor compiling a 5-year plan for Federal ocean pol-lution research and development (R&D), a planthat is revised every 3 years. The National MarinePollution Program links the R&D activities of 11

Federal agencies, establishes priorities, and reviewsthe budgets of the agencies with regard to the goalsof the program and screens them for unnecessaryduplication. Public participation in Federal plan-ning is fostered through workshops at which ma-rine pollution R&D progress is reviewed and fu-ture trends and priorities discussed. Each agencysubmits its own budget request to OMB, but ap-propriations are authorized to cover NOAA’s ex-penses for preparing the plan and monitoringprogress. In 1986, the Act was amended to pro-vide for an interagency board that will review in-dividual agency budget requests in the context ofthe current 5-year plan.

Congressional Options

Option 1: Establish an interagency planningand coordinating committee within theexecutive branch and a public advisorycommission similar to those created inthe Arctic Research and Policy Act, withFederal agency budgets submitted sepa-rately to OMB.

Congressional Action: Enact authorizing leg-islation.

Option 2: Establish an interagency planningand coordinating task force composed ofFederal agency representatives and pub-lic members similar to the task force es-tablished for acid precipitation R&D bythe National Energy Security Act, witha budget request combining all agencybudgets in a single EEZ document.


Option 3: Mandate interagency planning andcoordination and assign lead-agency re-sponsibility to a single agency as Con-gress did in the National Ocean PollutionResearch and Development and Monitor-ing Act of 1978.


Option 4: Allow ad hoc cooperation and co-ordination to continue at the discretionof Federal agency administrators.

Congressional Action: No action required.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Congress has attempted in various ways to im-prove the planning and coordination of governmentfunctions among Federal agencies with related mis-sions. Informal agency coordination has largelyfailed in the past, although the track record of in-teragency coordination groups has had mixed re-sults. To be effective, interagency coordinatingmechanisms must have means to coordinate boththe programs and budgets of the agencies. The suc-cess of ad hoc agency coordination depends primar-ily on comity and cooperation among governmentmanagers. Therefore, personnel changes, whichhappen frequently at high levels of the Federal Gov-ernment, can alter an otherwise amiable relation-ship among the agencies and destroy what mayhave been an effective coordination effort.

Efforts by Congress to improve agency account-ability, planning, coordination, and budgetingthrough legislation have also met with mixed re-sults. Some laws require elaborate plans that mustbe updated periodically and transmitted concur-rently to Congress and the President. Other stat-utes require that annual reports be similarly com-piled and transmitted. Such information can beuseful to Congress in carrying out its oversightresponsibility for agency performance and may beuseful to the President in his capacity as ‘‘chief ex-ecutive officer’ of the Federal Government.

The extent to which congressional committeesand the President effectively use these agency plans,programs, and reports required by law varies con-siderably. In some cases, agency plans and pro-grams receive little or no attention from Congress;in other cases, such as the MMS 5-year leasing pro-gram required under the Outer Continental ShelfLands Act, the planning document often becomesthe focus of public debate.

Although Federal agencies often have closelyrelated functions, their budgets are generally for-


mulated with little or no mutual consultation. Fur-thermore, budget examiners at OMB who are re-sponsible for the review of individual agenciesseldom collaborate with other OMB examiners whoare responsible for other agencies with similar pro-grams (e. g., NOAA’s budget is reviewed by a dif-ferent OMB budget examiner than is DOI). A sim-ilar situation exists within Congress among theappropriations subcommittees that are responsiblefor individual agency appropriations. To remedythis problem, Congress has in several cases man-dated that “cross-cutting” budget analyses be pre-pared for related multiple-agency activities so thatthe entire range of funds directed toward a specificeffort can be easily seen. Cross-cutting budget anal-yses are required in the Arctic Research and Pol-icy Act, Title VII of the Energy Security Act, andthe National Ocean Pollution Research and Devel-opment and Monitoring Act of 1978.

OMB exercises nearly omnipotent control overthe funding levels recommended in the President’sbudget that is submitted to Congress each year.Program budgets that are presented to Congressare arrived at through a byzantine negotiation proc-ess that involves OMB, Cabinet departments, agen-cies within the departments, programs within agen-cies, and finally, if appealed, the President. Thebudget process is internal, and neither the publicnor Congress is privy to the negotiations.

Congress has attempted to open the executivebranch budget process to more public scrutiny bydirecting the agencies by statute to submit recom-mended program budgets directly to Congress aspart of the interagency planning and coordinationprocess without prior review by OMB; the NationalOcean Pollution Research and Development andMonitoring Act uses this mechanism. Although theapproach appears reasonable in theory, it seldom—if ever—works in reality. OMB continues to main-tain its authority over all budget recommendationstransmitted to Congress from within the executivebranch.

Unified budget submissions to OMB accompa-nied by cross-cutting budget analyses and programplans that justify the funding levels, such as pro-vided in both the Arctic Research and Policy Actand Title VII of the Energy Security Act, seem towork reasonably well for developing rational inter-agency budgets within the normal budget process.

As currently implemented under the Energy Secu-rity Act, unified budget submissions from severalagencies in a single document covering acid pre-cipitation have the advantage of earmarking fundsspecifically for research in each agency as if it werea line item in the budget; on the other hand, theArctic Research and Policy Act merely requires thatArctic R&D be “designated” in the normal agencybudget submissions to OMB. The budget proce-dures under the Energy Security Act focus moredirectly on the multi-agency budget related to acidprecipitation rather than on the single budget ofeach agency. The National Ocean Pollution Re-search and Development and Monitoring Act pro-vides little advantage over the normal agency bud-geting process.

Providing for Future Seabed Mining

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to leaseminerals in the Outer Continental Shelf. Althoughthe main thrust of OCSLA is directed toward oiland gas, provisions are also included for leasing sul-fur (Sec. 8[i] and [j]), and other minerals (Sec.8[k]). Sulfur has been mined in the Gulf of Mex-ico since 1960 using borehole solution mining tech-niques. Because of the similarities between sulfurmining and oil and gas extraction, DOI applies tosulfur the same general regulations that govern pe-troleum operations.

13 When OCSLA was enactedin 1953, little was known about hard minerals inthe continental shelf. Scientists were aware of theirexistence, but technology was then not generallyavailable for either exploring or mining the seabedfor hard mineral deposits.

DOI claims jurisdiction under OCSLA to all off-shore areas seaward of the territorial sea over whichthe United States asserts jurisdiction and control.Since the United States is not a party to the Lawof the Sea Convention, the only applicable treatyrecognized by DOI as affecting offshore jurisdic-tion is the 1958 Convention on the ContinentalShelf.14 The 1958 Convention authorizes coastal

Izpub]jc Law 83-212; 67 stat. 462, Aug. 7, 1953; 43 U. S.C. 1331-1356; as amended by Public Law 93-627; 88 Stat. 2126, Jan. 3, 1975;and 95-372; 92 Stat. 629, Sept. 18, 1978.

1330 ~:ode of Feder~ Regulations, ch. II, part 250.I+ Convention on the continental Shelf, in force June 10, 1964, 15

UST 471, TIAS No. 5578, 499 U. N,T. S. 311.

Ch. 1—Summary, Issues, and Options . 29

Before the marine mining industry willinvest substantially in commercial pros-pecting in the EEZ, it must have assur-ances that the Federal Government willencourage development and grant accessto the private sector to explore and de-velop seabed minerals.

State control over the seabed to a depth of 200meters or beyond ‘‘where the depth of the super-jacent water admits of the exploitation of the nat-ural resources. DOI concludes that the conceptof ‘exploitability y ‘‘ in the 1958 Convention furthersupports the department’s opinion that the legalcontinental shelf includes the breadth of the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, regardless of thephysical attributes of the submarine area.

DOI’s Minerals Management Service most re-cently attempted to lease hard minerals in March1983, when plans were announced to prepare anenvironmental impact statement for a proposedlease sale of polymetallic sulfide minerals associ-ated with the Gorda Ridge geological complex. 15

Authority for the proposed lease sale was based onSection 8(k) of OCSLA.l6 The site of the mineraldeposits of the Gorda Ridge is a tectonic spread-ing center and, therefore, is not part of the geo-logical continental shelf. DOI based its authorityto lease the area on the definition of the ‘‘legal’continental shelf implied in Section 2(a) of OCSLA.17

The Gorda Ridge lease sale is yet to be held, but,in March 1987, MMS published proposed rules forprelease prospecting for non-energy marine min-erals. 18 The prelease prospecting rules are the firstof a three-tier regulatory program proposed byMMS; future rules would cover leasing and post-leasing operations.

‘5’ ‘Scoping Notice to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement,Federal Register, vol. 48, Mar. 28, 1983, p. 12840,

ICSCC. 8(k): “The secretary, is authorized to grant to the qualifiedpersons offering the highest bonuses on a basis of competitive bid-ding leases of any mineral other than oil, gas, and sulfur in any areaof the Outer Continental Shelf not then under lease for such mineralupon such royalty, rental, and other terms and conditions as the Sec-retary may prcscribc at the time of offering the area for lease.

‘ ‘Frank K. Richardson, ‘ ‘Opinion of the Solicitor, ’ L:. S. Depart-ment of the Interior, May 30, 1985.

1 nF&eral Rcqjs[er, vol. 52, Mar, 26, 1987, p. 9753.

Environmental groups and industry represent-atives have questioned DOI’s leasing authority un-der OCSLA, claiming that DOI is misinterpretingthe 1958 Convention by delineating the breadth ofthe continental shelf to include the 200-mile EEZby using the “exploitability” definition in OCSLA.These groups have asserted that no U.S. agencyhas statutory authority to grant leases or licensesto recover hard minerals from the seafloor beyondthe Outer Continental Shelf, except for NOAAwhich has authority to license commercial man-ganese nodule mining only. There is no disagree-ment that DOI has authority to lease hard mineralsin the Outer Continental Shelf. The controversyextends only to how far that authority extends sea-ward beyond the geological continental shelf,

Notwithstanding the legal question of whetherDOI has legislative authority to lease in the 200-mile EEZ beyond the geographical limits of the con-tinental shelf, questions remain about the adequacyof the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for ad-ministering an EEZ hard minerals leasing program.

Several shortcomings limit OCSLA’s suitabilityfor managing hard minerals in either the OuterContinental Shelf or the EEZ:

●

●

●

●

DOI is given little congressional guidance forplanning, environmental guidelines, inter-governmental coordination, and other admin-istrative details needed for structuring a hardmineral leasing regime under Section 8(k) ofOCSLA.Section 8(k) of the Act is discretionary withthe Secretary of the Interior; thus, there areno assurances to the industry that a stable, pre-dictable leasing program will be continued bysubsequent administrations,Bonus bid competitive leasing requirements(money paid to the government before explo-ration or development begins) set forth in Sec-tion 7(k) of OCSLA are not well suited forstimulating exploration and development ofseabed hard minerals by the private sector.The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act doesnot apply to the territories; therefore, theMinerals Management Service may not haveauthority to lease in a large area of the EEZadjacent to the U.S. Territories. 19

1 gThe narroW defin ltion of the term ‘‘State as used in the SUb-(con finud on nrxt page)


An ad hoc working group consisting of represent-atives of the marine minerals industry, environ-mental groups, coastal States, and academicianswas formed in 1986 to develop a conceptual frame-work for managing marine minerals in the EEZ.After several meetings, the members reached a con-sensus that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Actwas unsuitable for administering a seabed hardminerals exploration and development program,and that new ‘‘stand-alone’ legislation is neededto replace the oil- and gas-oriented OCSLA.20 Theworking group recommended that the authorizinglegislation should:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

use the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Re-sources Act (Public Law 96-283) mining pro-visions and its regime for public participationand multiple-use conflict resolution as a modelfor new EEZ seabed mining legislation;provide for a comprehensive and systematicresearch plan including bathymetric charting,mineral reconnaissance, and environmentalbaseline studies;require wide public dissemination of data butprotect confidential information;provide incentives for private industry to col-lect and contribute to the resource informa-tion base;apply legislation to all areas within the U.S.EEZ and the territories consistent with U.S.authority and obligations; andprovide for effective Federal/State/local con-sultation.

Legislation was introduced in both the 99th and100th Congresses to establish a regime for explor-ing and developing hard minerals in the EEZ.21

H.R. 1260, The National Seabed Hard Minerals

merged Lands Act and incorporated into the Outer Continental ShelfLand Act (Sec. 6[e]) limits the applicability of OCSLA to the watersoff ‘‘any State of the Union. This definition contrasts with otherlaws that specify Congress’ intent to extend their effect to the territo-ries as well.

ZoC[ifton Cufl is, President, Oceanic Society, Memorandum, Apr.1, 1986, to Ann Dore McLaughlin, Under Secretary of the Interior.

21 H. R. 1260, National Seabed Hard Minetals Act, 10oth Cong.,

1st sess., Feb. 25, 1987; H.R. 5464, 99th Cong., Sponsor: Lowryet al. Another bill would impose a temporary moratorium on seabedmining in the Gorda Ridge, H. R. 787, Ocean Mineral ResourcesDevelopment Act, IOOth Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 28, 1987, Sponsor:Bosco.

Act of 1987, includes many of the suggestions bythe ad hoc working group.

According to DOI, MMS’s proposed rules forprelease prospecting of marine minerals is a firststep toward providing access for private industryto obtain geologic and geophysical informationabout the EEZ (box 1-C). With the likelihood thatdevelopment of EEZ minerals will not take placeany time soon, the promulgation of acceptable pre-lease prospecting rules under OCSLA maybe suffi-cient to allow preliminary prospecting by the in-dustry while Congress formulates and enacts EEZseabed mining legislation that overcomes the defi-ciencies of OCSLA.


Option 1: Enact “stand-alone’ legislation forexploring and developing minerals in theU.S. EEZ patterned after the DeepSeabed Hard Minerals Resources Act.

Congressional Action: Enact new legislation.

Option 2: Amend the Outer Continental ShelfLands Act by adding a new title to ap-ply exclusively to marine hard mineralsin the EEZ.

Congressional Action: Amend the Outer Con-tinental Shelf Lands Act.

Option 3: Amend the Outer Continental ShelfLands Act to extend its application toU.S. territories and possessions. Section8(k) could either be amended to provideguidelines for marine hard mineral leas-ing or be allowed to remain in its presentform. The Outer Continental Shelf alsomight be redefined so as to be identicalto the Exclusive Economic Zone.


Option 4: Permit the Minerals ManagementService to continue to develop a regula-tory system based on its authority underthe Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,but amend Section 8(k) to provide morespecific guidance for administration,planning, and coordination.


●

●

●

●

●

●


Option 5: Allow the Minerals ManagementService to continue to develop a regula-tory system for preleasing, leasing, andpostlease management of Outer Conti-nental Shelf hard minerals under the ex-isting provisions of Section 8(k).



Whether new EEZ mining legislation is incor-porated as a separate title to the Outer Continen-tal Shelf Lands Act or is enacted as a ‘‘stand-alone”law would make little difference so far as the effectof the statute is concerned. However, stand-alonelegislation might relieve the concerns of oil and gas

interests that fear opening the Outer ContinentalShelf Lands Act up to amendment of Section 8(k)or adding a new EEZ seabed mining title mightmake the Act vulnerable to amendments affectingthe offshore oil and gas resource leasing program.

Should Congress decide not to enact separateEEZ seabed mining legislation through a stand-alone law, or a separate title in the Outer Continen-tal Shelf Lands Act, or amendments to Section 8(k)of OCSLA, the Minerals Management Servicecould continue to promulgate seabed mining leg-islation under the current authority of Section 8(k)of OCSLA. However, leasing authority under Sec-tion 8(k) pertains only to the continental shelf ad-jacent to “States of the Union, ” and, therefore,the Minerals Management Service probably lacksauthority to lease seabed minerals in the EEZ offJohnston Island and adjacent to the other Pacifictrust territories and possessions.

32 Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier

U.S. innovation and engineering know-how applied to developing seabed min-ing technology could place the UnitedStates in a pivotal competitive positionto exploit a world market. . . for seabedmining equipment.

Congress also has the option of merely broaden-ing the geographical coverage of the Outer Con-tinental Shelf Lands Act to include the U.S. terri-tories and possessions. Such action, if it applied tothe Act in general, would also open these areas topotential oil and gas leasing in the future, althoughthe EEZs of most of the territories and possessionsare not known to have oil and gas potential. If Con-gress chose to redefine the Outer Continental Shelfand make it identical to the EEZ, the status of theoil and gas leasing program might be clarified insome areas of legal uncertainty beyond the con-tinental shelf but within the 200-nautical mile zone.

Improving the Use of the Nation’sEEZ Data and Information

Oceanographic data collected in the course of ex-ploring the EEZ are a national asset. Because ofthe immense size of the U.S. EEZ, explorationactivities are likely to continue for decades. Infor-mation and data may take many forms, may dif-fer in quality, may come from many geographicalareas, and may be collected by many agencies andentities. It is important that such data be evaluated,archived, processed, and made available to a widerange of potential users in the future.

As the pace of EEZ exploration increases, the ex-isting Federal oceanographic data systems—whichare currently taxed near their capacity based onavailable funding and resources—probably will beunable to adequately manage the load. Even today,in some cases, data must be discarded for lack ofstorage and handling facilities, and user servicesare limited. In other cases, Federal agencies some-times do not submit data acquired at public expenseto the National Oceanographic Data Center or theNational Geophysical Data Center in a timely andsystematic manner.

Limitations on the national data centers are pri-marily institutional, budgetary, and service-con-nected. Funding for data archiving and dissemina-tion generally has been considered a lower priorityby the Federal agencies than data collection. Thehistorical usefulness of oceanographic, environ-mental, and resource information is often over-looked by Federal managers with mission-orientedresponsibilities.

Consistent policies for transmittal of EEZ-relatedinformation to the national data centers are lack-ing in many Federal agencies. However, invento-ries of data collected by the academic communityunder the auspices of the National Science Foun-dation’s Division of Ocean Sciences are requiredto be transmitted to the national data centers in atimely manner as a condition of its research grants.The Ocean Science Division’s ocean data policy isan excellent example that other Federal agenciesmight emulate.

But even with more effective policies to ensuretransmittal of EEZ information to the national datacenters, little improvement in efficiency can be ex-pected unless resources—both equipment and per-sonnel-- are upgraded and expanded commensur-ate with the expected increase in the workload. Themere ‘‘storage’ of data does not fulfill the nationalneed; such information must be retrievable andmade available to a wide range of potential users,including Federal agencies, State agencies, acade-mia, industry, and the general public.

Improved data services will require additionalfunds to raise the level of capability and perform-ance of the existing national data centers. Eventu-ally, regional data centers may be required to ade-quately service the public needs; but for the timebeing the major Federal effort aimed at improvingdata services probably should be directed at upgrad-ing the performance of the existing centers.


Option 1: Direct each Federal agency to estab-lish an EEZ data policy that will ensurethe timely and systematic transmittal ofoceanographic data to either the NationalOceanographic Data Center or the Na-tional Geophysical Data Center, which-ever is appropriate.


Congressional Action:

a. Amend authorizing legislation for each ap-propriate program and/or Federal agency.

b. Direct action through the annual appropri-ations process.

c. Enact general legislation that would applyto all Federal agencies collecting EEZ dataand information.

Option 2: Provide additional funds and direc-tives to the National Oceanographic DataCenter and the National Geophysical DataCenter to upgrade EEZ data services accord-ing to a plan, to be developed by the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, formeeting the future needs of archiving and dis-seminating EEZ data and information.

Congressional Action: Issue directive throughthe annual appropriations process.

Option 3: Continue at the current level offunding and continue to permit the Federalagencies to transmit EEZ-related informationto the National Oceanographic Data Center andthe National Geophysical Data Center at eachagency’s discretion.



Incentives for the agencies and the academiccommunity to place more emphasis on data serv-ices could take several forms. Since improvementsin data services are tied to adequate funding, themost expedient approach for Congress would beto direct appropriate agency actions through theannual appropriations process. This option, how-ever, would only be effective for one budget cycleand would have to be repeated annually if an ef-fective long-term data services program were tocontinue.

Amendments to individual agency authorizinglegislation, or alternative “umbrella” legislationapplicable to all agencies collecting EEZ data andinformation, would establish continuing programsto improve data services. Long-term plans for meet-ing the expanding EEZ data needs of the futureshould provide guidelines for improving overallgovernment data services.

Providing for the Use of Classified Data

National security may require that public dis-semination and use of certain EEZ-related data con-tinue to be restricted. This restriction may resultin some hardship and perhaps additional expenseto the scientific community as well as the marineminerals industry, but it need not totally lock upthat information. There are responsible ways inwhich classified data can be made available to thoseneeding to use such data for further EEZ explo-ration.

Federal personnel, contractors, and academiciansin many technical and engineering fields have ac-cess to and routinely use classified information ona daily basis. While maintaining security installa-tions is sometimes unwieldy and expensive, it maybe possible to achieve a compromise between thenational need for security and the national need fortimely and efficient exploration of the EEZ by estab-lishing secure data centers to manage classified EEZdata.

Other aspects of EEZ data classification mayprove to be more troublesome. The ocean sciencecommunity may be restricted from publishing someEEZ data or information that would, if unclassi-fied, be freely available in the scientific literature.There are also inconsistencies in U.S. policy regard-ing scientific access of foreign investigators to theU.S. EEZ and the Navy’s access to foreign EEZsto gather hydrographic information that seem atodds with current EEZ data classification policies.Diplomatic questions may arise from these in-consistencies that could result in access restrictionfor U.S. scientists working in the EEZs of othercountries.


Option 1: Establish regional classified datacenters at major oceanographic institu-tions or at colleges and universities, withaccess assured for certified scientists andwith guidelines established for the useand publication of data sets and bathy-metric information.

Congressional Action: Direct the Departmentof Defense in collaboration with the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-


tration to establish regional classified centersunder contract with academic institutionsfor the operation and administration of thecenters, or consider Federal operation ofsuch centers.

Option 2: Review the current EEZ data clas-sification policies and assess their possi-ble effects on academic research and theirpossible international impacts on accessto other countries’ EEZs by U.S. sci-entists.

Congressional Action: Hold oversight hear-ing on Navy’s classification policies and pro-cedures.

Option 3: Continue to allow the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion and the Navy to seek a solution tothe EEZ data classification problem.

Congressional Action: No legislative action re-quired.


The cost of establishing and operating regionalclassified data centers either at academic institu-tions or at Federal centers is likely to be significant.There also may be policies at some of the academicinstitutions that prohibit the location of classifieddata centers at their facilities.

Congress may choose to learn more about thedetails of the need for classification of EEZ dataand the impact that classification restrictions mighthave on scientific activities and commercial explo-ration before it takes further action. Classified hear-ings may be needed to fully evaluate the securityimplications of EEZ data.

Without either legislative or oversight activitiesby Congress, the uncertainties regarding the futureavailability of classified data may continue for sometime until mutual agreement is reached betweenthe Navy and the National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration.

Assisting the States in Preparing forFuture Seabed Mining

The first major U.S. efforts to commercially ex-ploit marine minerals are likely to occur in Statewaters. Most coastal States do not currently havestatutes suitable for administering a marine min-erals exploration and development program. ManyStates do not separate onshore from offshore de-velopment, providing only a single administrativeprocess for all mineral resources. Four of the States—California, Oregon, Texas, and Washington—separate the leasing of oil and gas from other min-erals, but most do not.

Oregon has completed surveys of its coastalwaters, and Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia areamong the States where offshore surveys are con-tinuing. These survey programs are often cooper-ative efforts between the States, the U.S. Geologi-cal Survey, and the Minerals Management Service.State-Federal task forces formed through the ini-tiatives of the Department of the Interior are as-sisting the coastal States in coordinating their ef-forts with marine minerals exploration currentlytaking place in the EEZ. State-Federal task forceshave been formed in Hawaii (cobalt-manganesecrusts), Oregon and California (polymetallic sul-fides in the Gorda Ridge), North Carolina (phos-phorites), Georgia (heavy mineral sands), and theGulf States (sand, gravel, and heavy minerals offAlabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas),

The Federal Government could provide valuabletechnical assistance to the States in preparing forpossible exploration and development of marineminerals in nearshore State waters. The Federal-State task forces are currently coordinating theStates’ and DOI’s activities in the EEZ, but fur-ther assistance may be needed in formulating Statelegislation for leasing, permitting, or licensing ma-rine minerals activities in the States’ territorial seas.

Such legislative initiatives must originate withthe individual States, but the Federal Governmentcould provide assistance through existing programs


such as those authorized by the Coastal Zone Man-agement Act. Private organizations, such as theCoastal States Organization or the National Gover-nors Association, could also serve as a catalyst andguide to States for developing legislative conceptsor model seabed mining legislation.


Option 1: Direct the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration’s Office ofOcean and Coastal Resource Manage-ment to provide technical assistance andfinancial support to coastal States’ coastalzone management programs to formulateState marine minerals management legis-lation through the Coastal Zone Manage-ment Act, Section 309 grants program.

Congressional Action: Issue directive throughthe annual appropriations process,

Option 2: Direct the Minerals ManagementService to provide technical assistance tothe States to aid in formulating marineminerals legislation that could provide aninterface between marine minerals activ-ities in the EEZ adjacent to the States’territorial seas.

Congressional Action: Issue directive throughthe annual appropriations process.

Option 3: Provide technical assistance andfunds to the coastal States to aid in for-mulating marine minerals legislationthrough seabed miring legislation enactedas a ‘‘stand-alone’ statute, amendmentsto Section 8(k) of the Outer ContinentalShelf Lands Act, or through a new titlein the Outer Continental Shelf LandsAct.

Congressional Action: Enact stand-alone leg-islation or amend the Outer ContinentalShelf Lands Act.

Option 4: Rely on the individual initiative ofthe coastal States to undertake a legisla-tive effort to formulate marine mineralslegislation.



Directives to agencies through the annual ap-propriations process are often followed to theminimal extent possible and only apply to theexpenditure of funds during the specific fiscalyear. Authorizing legislation is probablyneeded to ensure a continuing, long-termeffort.

Chapter 2Resource Assessments and Expectations

CONTENTS

Page

World Outlook for Seabed Minerals ., . . . . . 39General Geologic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Atlantic Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Sand and Gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Placer Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Phosphorite Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Manganese Nodules and Pavements . . . . . 53

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands . . . 54Sand and Gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Placer Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Gulf of Mexico Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Sand and Gravel . .’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Placer Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Phosphorite Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Pacific Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Sand and Gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Precious Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Black Sand—Chromite Deposits .. 58Other Heavy Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Phosphorite Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Polymetallic Sulfide Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Alaska Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Sand and Gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Precious Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Other Heavy Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Hawaii Region and U.S. TrustTerritories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Cobalt-Ferromanganese Crusts . . . . . . . . . 70Manganese Nodules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

BoxBox Page

2-A. Mineral Resources and Reserves . . . . . 40

Figure

2-1.

2-2.2-3.

2-4.

2-5.2-6.

2-7.

FiguresNo. Page

Idealized Physiography of aContinental Margin and SomeCommon Margin Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Sedimentary Basins in the EEZ . . . . . . 44Sand and Gravel Deposits Along theAtlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts ..., 46Plan and Section Views of Shoals OffOcean City, Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Atlantic EEZ Heavy Minerals . . . . . . . 51Potential Hard Mineral Resourcesof the Atlantic, Gulf, and PacificEEZs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Formation of Marine PolymetallicSulfide Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure

2-8.

2-9.

2-1o.

2-11.

2-12.

2-13.

2-14.

No. Page

Locations of Mineral DepositsRelative to Physiographic Features . . . 66Potential Hard Mineral Resources ofthe Alaskan EEZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Potential Hard Mineral Resources ofthe Hawaiian EEZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crustson the Flanks of Seamounts andVolcanic Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71EEZs of U.S. Insular and TrustTerritories in the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Potential Hard Mineral Resources ofU.S. Insular Territories South ofHawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Potential Hard Mineral Resources ofU.S. Insular Territories West ofHawaii ..,..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

TablesTable No. Page

2-1.

2-2.

2-3.

2-4.

2-5.

2-6.

2-7.

2-8,

Association of Potential MineralResources With Types of PlateBoundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Areas Surveyed and EstimatedOffshore Sand Resources of the UnitedStates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Criteria Used in the Assessment ofPlacer Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Estimates of Sand and GravelResources Within the U.S. ExclusiveEconomic Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Estimates of Typical Grades ofContained Metals for Seafloor MassiveSulfide Deposits, Compared WithTypical Ore From Ophiolite MassiveSulfide Deposits and Deep-SeaManganese Nodules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Average Chemical Composition forVarious Elements of Crusts From<8,200 Feet Water Depth From theEEZ of the United States and OtherPacific Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Potential of Cobalt, Nickel,Manganese, and Platinum in Crusts ofU.S. Trust and Affiliated Territories . .Estimated Resource Potential of CrustsWithin the EEZ of Hawaii and U.S.Trust and Affiliated Territories . . . . . . .

43

48

50

56

63

72

74

75

Chapter 2

Resource Assessments and Expectations

WORLD OUTLOOK FOR SEABED MINERALS

Ever since the recovery of rock-like nodules fromthe deep ocean by the research vessel H.M.S.Challenger during its epic voyage in 1873, therehas been persistent curiosity about seabed minerals.It was not until after World War II that the black,potato-sized nodules like those found by theChallenger became more than a scientific oddity.As metals prices climbed in response to increaseddemand during the post-war economic boom, com-mercial attention turned to the cobalt-, manganese-,nickel-, and copper-rich nodules that litter theseafloor of the Pacific Ocean and elsewhere. Also,as the Nation’s interest in science peaked in the1960s, oceanographers, profiting from technologicalachievements in ocean sensors and shipboard equip-ment developed for the military, expanded oceanresearch and exploration. The secrets of the seabedbegan to be unlocked.

Even before the Challenger discovery of man-ganese nodules, beach sands at the surf’s edge weremined for gold and precious metals at some loca-tions in the world (box 2-A). There are reports thatlead and zinc were mined from nearshore subseaareas in ancient Greece at Laurium and that tinand copper were mined in Cornwall. 1 Coal and am-ber were mined in or under the sea in Europe asearly as 1860. Since then, sand, gravel, shells, lime,precious coral, and marine placer minerals (e.g.titanium sands, tin sands, zirconium, monazite,staurolite, gold, platinum, gemstones, and magne-tite) have been recovered commercially. Barite hasbeen recovered by subsea quarrying. Ironically,deep-sea manganese nodules, the seabed resourcethat has drawn the most present-day commercialinterest and considerable private research and de-velopment investment, have not yet been recoveredcommercially. Rich metalliferous muds in the RedSea have been mined experimentally and are con-sidered to be ripe for commercial developmentshould favorable economic conditions develop.

IM.J. Cruickshank and W. Siapno, “Marine Minerals—An Up-date and Introduction, ,$ farinc Technology SocictjJournal, vol. 19,1985, pp. 3-5.

Recent discoveries of massive polymetallic sul-fides formed at seafloor spreading zones where su-perheated, mineral-rich saltwater escapes from theEarth’s crust have attracted scientific interest andsome speculation about their future commercial po-tential. These deposits contain copper, zinc, iron,lead, and trace amounts of numerous minerals.Similar deposits of ancient origin occur in Cyprus,Turkey, and Canada, suggesting that more knowl-edge about seabed mineralization processes couldcontribute to a better understanding of massive sul-fide deposits onshore. Cobalt-rich ferromanganesecrusts, found on the slopes of seamounts, have alsobegun to receive attention.

Beach placers and similar onshore deposits areimportant sources of several mineral commoditieselsewhere in the world, Marine placer deposits ofsimilar composition often lay immediately offshore.Among the most valuable marine placers, based onthe value of material recovered thus far, are the cas-siterite (source of tin) deposits off Burma, Thai-land, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The so-called “lightheavy minerals” —titanium minerals, monazite,and zircon—are found extensively along the coastsof Brazil, Mauritania, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Kenya, Mozambique, Madagascar, India, SriLanka, Bangladesh, China, and the southwesternand eastern coasts of Australia.

Although Australia has extensively mined“black” titaneous beach sands along its coasts, off-shore mining of these sands has not proven eco-nomical. 2 Titaniferous magnetite, an iron-richtitanium mineral, has been mined off the south-ern coast of Japan’s Kyushu Island. 3 Similar mag-netite deposits exist off New Zealand and the Gulfof St. Lawrence. Chromite placers are extensiveon beaches and in the near offshore of Indonesia,the Philippines, and New Caledonia. Chromite-

21. Morley, Black Sands: A History of the Mineral Sand AfiningIndustry in Eastern Australia (St. Lucia: University of QueenslandPress, 1981 ), p. 278.

3J. Mere, The Mineral Resources of the Sea (New York, NY: El-sevier Publishing Co., 1965), p. 16.

39


bearing beach sands were mined along the south- minable gold are located in several nearshoreern coast of Oregon during World War 11 with gov- Alaskan areas in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska,ernment support. and adjacent to southeastern Alaska. A commer-

cial gold dredge mining operation was begun byGold has been mined from many beach placers Inspiration Resources near Nome in 1986, but a

along the west coast of the United States and else- number of nearshore gold operations in the Nomewhere in the world. Marine placers of potentially area have been attempted and abandoned in the

Ch. 2—Resource Assessments and Expectations . 41

past. Diamonds have been recovered from near- gravel recovery is primarily limited to State waters,shore areas in Namibia, Republic of South Africa, mostly in New Jersey, New York, Florida, Mis-and Brazil. sissippi, and California. Japan and the European

The recovery of sand and gravel from offshorecountries have depended more on marine sand and

far exceeds the extent of mining of other marinegravel than has the United States because of limitedland resources. Special uses can be made of ma-

minerals. 4 In the United States, offshore sand and rine sand and gravel deposits in the Alaskan and———-4J. M. Broadus, “Seabed Materials, ” Science, vol. 235, Feb. 20, Canadian Beaufort Sea—the offshore oil and gas

1987, pp. 853-860. Also see M. Baram, D. Rice, and W. Lee, Ma- industry uses such material for gravel islands andrine Mininc of the Continental Shelf (Cambridge. MA: Ballinger.1978), p. 301

The potentialmineral deposits

<, “. gravel pads for drilling.

GENERAL GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK

for the formation of economicwithin the Exclusive Economic

Zone (EEZ) of the United States is determined bythe geologic history, geomorphology, and environ-ment of its continental margins and insular areas.Continental margins are a relatively small portionof the Earth’s total surface area, yet they are of greatgeological importance and of tremendous linear ex-tent. In broad relief, the Earth’s surface consistsof two great topographic surfaces: one essentiallyat sea level— the continental masses of the world,including the submerged shelf areas—and the otherat nearly 16,000 feet below sea level—representingthe deep ocean basins. The boundaries betweenthese two surfaces are the continental margins.Continental margins can be divided into separateprovinces: the continental shelf, continental slope,and continental rise (see figure 2-1 ).

Continental margins represent active zoneswhere geologic conditions change. These changesare driven by tectonic activity within the Earth’scrust and by chemical and physical activity on thesurface of the Earth. Tectonic processes such as vol-canism and faulting dynamically alter the seafloor,geochemical processes occur as seawater interactswith the rocks and sediments on the seafloor, andsedimentary processes control the material depos-ited on or eroded from the seafloor. All of theseprocesses contribute to the formation of offshoremineral deposits.

Advanced marine research technologies devel-oped since World War II and the refinement andacceptance of the plate-tectonics theory have cre-ated a greater understanding of the dynamics ofcontinental margins and mineral formation. Ac-

cording to the plate-tectonics model, the Earth’souter shell is made up of gigantic plates of continen-tal lithosphere (crust and upper mantle) and/oroceanic lithosphere. These plates are in slow butconstant motion relative to each other. Plates col-lide, override, slide past each other along transformfaults, or pull apart along rift zones where new ma-terial from the Earth’s mantle upwells and is addedto the crust above.

Seafloor spreading centers are divergent plateboundaries where new oceanic crust is forming. Asplates move apart, the leading edge moves againstanother plate forming either a convergent plateboundary or slipping along it in a transform plateboundary. Depending on whether the leading edgeis oceanic or continental lithosphere, this processmay result in the building of a mountain range(e.g., the Cascade Mountains) or an oceanic islandarc (e. g., the Aleutian Islands) or, if the plates areslipping past one another, a transform fault zone(e.g., the San Andreas fault zone).

Four types of continental margins border theUnited States: active collision, trailing edge, ex-tensional transform, and continental sea. Wherecollisions occur between oceanic plates and platescontaining continental land masses, the thinneroceanic plate will be overridden by the thicker, lessdense continental plate. The zone along which oneplate overrides another is called a subduction zoneand frequently is manifested by an oceanic trench.

Coastal volcanic mountain ranges, volcanic is-land arcs, and frequent earthquake activity are re-lated to subduction zones. This type of active con-tinental margin borders most of the Pacific Oceanand the U.S. EEZ adjacent to the Aleutian chain

.


Figure 2-1 .—Idealized Physiography of aContinental Margin and Some Common Margin Types

I Continental margin rise plain I

r I

Atlantic: (trailing edge)

I 1

North Pacific Margin: (collision)

I 1

South Pacific: (volcanic arcs, trenches, and carbonate reefs)SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; R.W. Rowland, M.R. Goud,

and B.A. McGregor, “The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone—A Summaryof its Geology, Exploration, and Resource Potential,” U.S. Geologi-cal Survey Circular 912, 1983.

and the west coast (figure 2-1 ). These regions haverelatively narrow continental shelves and their on-shore geology is dominated by igneous intrusiveand volcanic rocks. These rocks supply the thin ve-neer of sediment overlying the continental crust ofthe shelf. Further offshore, the Pacific coast EEZextends beyond the shelf, slope, and rise to thedepths underlain by oceanic crust. In the Pacificnorthwest, these depths encompass a region ofseafloor spreading where new oceanic crust is form-ing. This region includes the Gorda Ridge and pos-sibly part of the Juan de Fuca Ridge, which arelocated within the U.S. EEZ off California, Ore-gon, and Washington.

The trailing edge of a continent has a passivemargin because it lacks significant volcanic and seis-mic activity. Passive margins are located withincrustal plates at the transition between oceanic andcontinental crust. These margins formed at diver-gent plate boundaries in the past. Over millions ofyears, subsidence in these margin areas has allowedthick deposits of sediment to accumulate. The At-lantic coast of the United States is an example ofa trailing edge passive margin. This type of coastis typified by broad continental shelves that extendinto deep water without a bordering trench. Coastalplains are wide and low-lying with major drainagesystems. The greatest potential for the formationof recoverable ore deposits on passive margins re-sults from sedimentary processes rather than recentmagmatic or hydrothermal activity.

The Gulf of Mexico represents another type ofcoast that develops along the shores of a continen-tal sea. These passive margins also typically havea wide continental shelf and thick sedimentary de-posits. Deltas commonly develop off major riversbecause the sea is relatively shallow, is smaller thanthe major oceans, and has lower wave energy thanthe open oceans.

Plate edges are not the only regions of volcanicactivity. Mid-plate volcanoes form in regions over-lying “hot spots” or areas of high thermal activ-ity. As plates move relative to mantle ‘‘hot spots,chains of volcanic islands and seamounts are formed

Ch. 2—Resource Assessments and Expectations 43

Table 2-1 .—Association of Potential MineralResources With Types of Plate Boundaries

Type of plate boundary/Potential mineral resources

Divergent:● Oceanic ridges

—Metalliferous sediments (copper, iron, manganese,lead, zinc, barium, cobalt, silver, gold; e.g., Atlantis IIDeep of Red Sea)

—Stratiform manganese and iron ixodes andhydroxides and iron silicates (e.g., sites on Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Galapagos Spreading Center)

—Polymetallic massive sulfides (copper, iron, zinc,silver, gold, e.g., sites on East-Pacific Rise andGalapagos Spreading Center)

—Polymetallic stockwork sulfides (copper, iron, zinc,silver, gold; e.g., sites on Mid-Atlantic Ridge,Carlsberg Ridge, Costa Rica Rift)

—Other polymetallic sulfides in disseminated orsegregated form (copper, nickel, platinum groupmetals)

—Asbestos—Chromite

Convergent:● Offshore

—Upthrust sections of oceanic crust containing typesof mineral resources formed at divergent plateboundaries (see above)

—Tin, uranium, porphyry copper and possible goldmineralization in granitic rocks

Convergent:● Onshore

—Porphyry deposits (copper, iron, molybdenum, tin,zinc, silver, gold; e.g., deposits at sites in Andesmountains)

—Polymetallic massive sulfides (copper, iron, lead,zinc, silver, gold, barium; e.g., Kuroko deposits ofJapan)

Transform:. Offshore

—Mineral resources similar to those formed atdivergent plate boundaries (oceanic ridges) mayoccur at offshore transform plate boundaries; e.g.,sites on Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Carlsberg Ridge)

such as the Hawaiian Islands. These sites may alsohave significant potential for future recovery ofmineral deposits.

The theory of plate tectonics has led to the rec-ognition that many economically important typesof mineral deposits are associated with either pres-ent or former plate boundaries. Each type of plateboundary—divergent, convergent, or transform—is not only characterized by a distinct kind of in-teraction, but each is also associated with distincttypes of mineral resources (table 2-1). Knowledgeof the origin and evolution of a margin can serveas a general guide to evaluating the potential forlocating certain types of mineral deposits.

SOURCE: Peter A. Rona, “Potential Mineral and Energy Resources at SubmergedPlate Boundaries,” MTS ~oumal, vol. 19, No, 4, 19S5, pp. 18-25.

ATLANTIC

When the Atlantic Ocean began to form betweenAfrica and North America around 200 million yearsago, it was a narrow, shallow sea with much evap-oration. The continental basement rock whichformed the edge of the rift zone was block-faultedand the down-dropped blocks were covered withlayers of salt and, as the ocean basin widened, withthick deposits of sediment. A number of sedimen-tary basins were formed in the Atlantic region alongthe U.S. east coast (figure 2-2). Very deep sedi-

REGION

ments are reported to have accumulated in the Bal-timore Canyon Trough. In addition, a great wedgeof sediment is found on the continental slope andrise. In places, due to the weight of the overlyingsediment and density differential, salt has flowedupward to form diapirs or salt domes and is avail-able as a mineral resource. In addition, sulfur iscommonly associated with salt domes in the caprock on the top and flanks of the domes. Both saltand sulfur are mined from salt domes (often by so-


Figure 2-2.–Sedimentary Basins in the EEZ

SoutheastAtlantic

Sedimentary‘1\ Basins

Several basins formed in the EEZ in which great amounts of sediment have accumulated. Whileof primary interest for their potential to contain hydrocarbons, salt and sulfur are also potentiallyrecoverable from sedimentary basins in the Atlantic and Gulf regions.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Symposium Proceedings—A National Pro-gram for the Assessment and Development of the Mineral Resources of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone,”U.S. Geological Survey Circular 929, 1983.


lution mining) and, thus, represent potentially re-coverable mineral commodities from offshore de-posits, although at present they would not be likelyprospects in the Atlantic region.

While they have potential for oil and gas forma-tion and entrapment, the bulk of these sedimen-tary rocks are not likely to be good prospects forhard minerals recovery because of their depth ofburial. Exceptions could occur in very favorable cir-cumstances where a sufficiently high-grade depositmight be found near the surface in less than 300feet of water or where it could be dissolved and ex-tracted through a borehole. Better prospects, par-ticularly for locating potentially economic andmineable placer deposits, would be in the overly-ing Pleistocene and surficial sand and gravel.

The igneous and metamorphic basement rocksof the continental shelf, although possible sites ofmineral deposits, would be extremely unlikely pros-pects for economic recovery because of their depthof burial. The oceanic crust that formed under whatis now the slope and rise also probably contains ac-cumulations of potential ore minerals, but these toowould not be accessible. The best possibility for lo-cating metallic minerals deposits in bedrock in theAtlantic EEZ probably would be in the continen-tal shelf off the coast of Maine where the sedimentsare thinner or absent and the regional geology isfavorable. There are metallic mineral deposits inthe region and base-metal sulfide deposits are minedin Canada’s New Brunswick.

One other area that may be of interest is theBlake Plateau located about 60 miles off the coastsof Florida and Georgia. It extends about 500 milesfrom north to south and is approximately 200 mileswide at its widest part, covering an area of about100,000 square miles. The Blake Plateau is thoughtto be a mass of continental crust that was an ex-tension of North America left behind during rift-ing. There is some expectation that microcontinentssuch as the Blake Plateau might be more mineral-ized than parent continents or the general ocean-floor, and, because they have received little sedi-ment, their bedrock mineral deposits should bemore accessible. s

‘K .0. Emery and B. J. Skinner, “Mineral Deposits of the Deep-Ocean Floor, Marine Mining, vol. 1 (1977), No. 1/2, pp. 1-71.

Sand and Gravel

Sand and gravel are high-volume but relativelylow-cost commodities, which are largely used as ag-gregate in the construction industry. Beach nourish-ment and erosion control is another common useof sand. Along the Atlantic coast most sand andgravel is mined from sources onshore except for aminor amount in the New York City area. For anoffshore deposit to be economic, extraction andtransportation costs must be kept to a minimum.Hence, although the EEZ extends 200 nauticalmiles seaward, the maximum practical limit forsand and gravel resource assessments would be theouter edge of the continental shelf. However, theeconomics of current dredging technology neces-sitate relatively shallow water, generally not greaterthan 130 feet, and general proximity to areas of highconsumption. While these factors would furtherlimit prospective areas to the inner continental shelfregions, they could potentially include almost theentire nearshore region from Miami to Boston.

Sand and gravel are terms used for different sizeclassifications of unconsolidated sedimentary ma-terial composed of numerous rock types. The ma-jor constituent of sand is quartz, although otherminerals and rock fragments are present. Gravel,because of its larger size, usually consists of multi-ple-grained rock fragments. Sand is generally de-fined as material that passes through a No. 4 mesh(O. 187-inch) U.S. Standard sieve and is retainedon a No. 200 mesh (0.0029-inch) U.S. Standardsieve. Gravel is material in the range of O. 187 to3 inches in diameter.

Because most uses for sand and gravel specifygrain size, shape, type and uniformity of material,maximum clay content, and other characteristics,the attractiveness of a deposit can depend on howclosely it matches particular needs in order to min-imize additional processing. Thus the sorting anduniformity of an offshore deposit also will be de-terminants in its potential utilization.

The Atlantic continental shelf varies in widthfrom over 125 miles in the north to less than 2 milesoff southern Florida. The depth of water at the outeredge of the shelf varies from 65 feet off the FloridaKeys to more than 525 feet on Georges Bank andthe Scotian Shelf. A combination of glacial, out-wash, subaerial, and marine processes have deter-


Figure 2-3.—Sand and Gravel Deposits Along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts

e Plateau

n

Significant sand and gravel deposits lie on the continental shelf near urban coastal areas. As local onshore supplies of con-struction aggregate become exhausted, offshore deposits become more attractive. Sand is also needed for beach replenish-ment and erosion control.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; S. Williams, “Sand and Gravel–An Enormous Offshore Resource Within the U.S. EconomicZone,” manuscript prepared for U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin on commodity geology research, edited by John DeYoung, Jr.

mined the general characteristics and distributionof the sand and gravel resources on the shelf.

The northern part of the Atlantic shelf as farsouth as Long Island was covered by glaciers dur-ing the Pleistocene Ice Age. At least four major epi-sodes of glaciation occurred. Glacial deposition anderosion have directly affected the location of sandand gravel deposits in this region. Glacial till andglaciofluvial outwash sand and gravel deposits covermuch of the shelf ranging in thickness from over300 feet to places where bedrock is exposed at thesurface. The subsequent raising of sea level has al-lowed marine processes to rework and redistribute

sediment on the shelf. Major concentrations ofgravel in this region are located on hummocks andridges in the vicinity of Jeffrey’s Bank in the Gulfof Maine and off Massachusetts on Stellwagen Bankand in western Massachusetts Bay.

Concentrations of sand are found off Portland,Maine, in the northwestern Gulf of Maine and inCape Cod Bay northward along the coast throughwestern Massachusetts Bay to Cape Ann (figure 2-3). Large accumulations of sand also occur alongthe south coast of Long Island and in scattered areasof Long Island Sound. Large sand ridges on GeorgesBank and Nantucket Shoals are also an impressive

Ch. 2—Resource Assessments and Expectations ● 47

Figure 2-4.—Plan and Section Views of ShoalsOff Ocean City, Maryland

Several drowned barrier beach shoals off the DelmarvaPeninsula are potential sources of sand and possibly heavymineral placers.

SOURCE: S. Jeffress Williams, U S. Geological Survey

potential resource of medium to coarse sand. Theseridges range in height from 40 to 65 feet and inwidth from 1 to 2 miles, with lengths up to 12 miles.The ridge tops are often at water depths of less than30 feet, and a single ridge could contain on the or-der of 650 million cubic yards of sand.

South of Long Island through the mid-Atlanticregion, the shelf area was not directly affected byglacial scouring and deposition, but the indirect ef-fects are extensive. During the low stands of sealevel, the shelf became an extension of the coastalplain through which the major rivers cut valleysand transported sediment. The alternating periodsof glacial advance and marine transgression re-worked the sediments on the shelf, yet a numberof inherited features remain, including filled chan-nels, relict beach ridges, and inner shelf shoals. Fea-tures such as these are particularly common off NewJersey and the Delmarva Peninsula and are poten-

tial sources of sand and possibly gravel (figure 2-4). Seismic profiles and cores indicate that themajority of these shoals consist of medium to coarsesand similar to onshore beaches. Geologic evidencesuggests that most of the shoals probably formedin the nearshore zone by coastal hydraulic proc-esses reworking existing sand bodies, such as relictdeltas and ebb-tide shoals. c Some of the shoals mayalso represent old barrier islands and spits that weredrowned and left offshore by the current marinetransgression. Typical shoals in this region are onthe order of 30 to 40 feet high, are hundreds of feetwide, and extend for tens of miles. South of LongIsland, gravel is much less common and found onlywhere ancestral river channels and deltas are ex-posed on the surface and reworked by movingprocesses.

The southern Atlantic shelf from North Caro-lina to the tip of Florida was even further removedfrom the effects of glaciation and also from largevolumes of fluvial sediment. The shelf is more thinlycovered with surficial sand, and outcrops of bed-rock are common. Furthermore, unlike the mid-dle Atlantic region, the southern shelf is not cut byriver channels and submarine canyons, Sand re-sources in this region are described as discontinuoussheets or sandy shoals with the carbonate content(consisting of shell and coral fragments, limestonegrains, and oolites) increasing to the south.

Although there is more information on the At-lantic EEZ than on other portions of the U.S. EEZ,estimates of sand and gravel resources on the At-lantic continental shelf are limited by a paucity ofdata. Resource estimates have been made usingassumptions of uniform distribution and averagethickness of sediment but these are rough approx-imations at best since the assumptions are knownto be overly simplistic. A number of specific areashave been cored and studied in sufficient detail bythe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make localresource estimates. 7 Resource assessments of spe-cific sand deposits on the Atlantic shelf in water

Williams, “Sand and Gravel Deposits Within the U.S. Ex-clusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessment and Uses, Proceed-ings of the 18th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,TX, May 5-8, 1986, pp. 377-386.

Duane and W. L. ‘‘Sand and Gravel Resources,U.S. Continental Shelf, ” Geology of North America: Atlantic Re-gion, LT. S., Ch. XI-C, Geological Society of America, Decade of NorthAmerican Geology (in press).


Table 2=2.—Areas Surveyed and Estimated Offshore Sand Resources of the United States

Area surveyed Sand volumeGeographic area Seismic miles Cores (mile 2) (X 10’ cubic yards)

New England:Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts (Boston). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Connecticut (Long Island Sound). . . . . . . . . . . .

Area totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Southshore Long Island:Gardiners-Napeague Bays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montauk to Moriches Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Moriches to Fire Island Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fire island to East Rockaway lnlet . . . . . . . . . .Rockaway ......,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Area totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Jersey:Sandy Hook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Manasquan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Barnegat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Little Egg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cape May...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Area totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia:Norfolk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delmarva. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Florida:Northern:

Fernandina—Cape Canaveral . . . . . . . . . . . . .Southern:

Cape Canaveral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cape Canaveral—Palm Beach . . . . . . . . . . . .Palm Beach—Miami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Area totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

California:Newport-Pt. Dume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pt. Dume—Santa Barbara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Area totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Great Lakes:Erie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grand totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,900

955

25586

200389760

1,660

260

435

734

1,328

356611176

2,471

360145

505

Unknown

Unknown

280

122

10

38107

198

57

78

112

197

917231

391

6934

103

Unknown

Unknown

8.920 1.341

101752550

260

10016035012550

785

502575

120340

12357

141130

531

1621,9122,4041,3591,031

6,868

1,00060

448180

1,880610

180

310

950

1,650

350450141

3,568

20

225

218

295

2,00092

581

2,591

14090

230

Unknown

Unknown

2,673

49190

599

Unknown

Unknown

15,0117,266SOURCES: Published and unpublished reaortsof U.S. Armv CorDsof Enalneers Coastal Enalneerino Research Center: David B. Duane. “Sedimentation and Ocean

Engineerlng:PIac6r Mineral R&sources/’ MarheSedhrent Tra;spofi and Env/ronhenta/ fianagernerr~D.J. Stanley and D.J.P. Swlft(eds) (New York, NY:John Wiley&Sons, 1976~p. 550.

depth of 130 feet or less are included in table 2-2. Placer DepositsA total of over 15 billion cubic yards of commer-cial quality sand are identified in the table, and it Offshore placer deposits are concentrations ofis fair to say that the potential for additional heavy detrital minerals that are resistant to theamounts is large. Since the current annual U.S. chemical and physical processes of weathering.consumption of sand and gravel is about 1,050 mil- Placer deposits are usually associated with sand andlion cubic yards, these resources would clearly be gravel as they are concentrated by the same flu-ample to meet the needs of the east coast for the vial and marine processes that form gravel bars,foreseeable future. sandbanks, and other surficial features. However,


because they have different hydraulic behavior thanless dense materials they can become concentratedinto mineable deposits.

In addition to hydraulic behavior, a number ofother factors influence the distribution and char-acter of placer deposits on the continental shelf andcoastal areas. These factors include sources of theminerals, mechanisms for their erosion and trans-port, and processes of concentration and preserva-tion of the deposits.

While placer minerals can be derived from pre-viously formed, consolidated, or unconsolidatedsedimentary deposits, their primary source is fromigneous and metamorphic rocks, Of these rocks,those that had originally been enriched in heavyminerals and were present in sufficiently largevolumes would provide a richer source of materialfor forming valuable placer deposits. For example,chromite and platinum-group metals occur in ultra-mafic rocks such as dunite and peridotite, and theproximity of such rocks to the coast would enhancethe possibility of finding chromite or platinumplacers. While small podiform peridotite depositsare found from northern Vermont to Georgia,ultramafic rocks are not overly common in the At-lantic coastal region. Consequently, the prospectsfor locating chromite or platinum placers in surfi-cial sediments of the Atlantic shelf would be low.Other rock types, such as high-grade metamorphicrocks, would be a likely source of titanium mineralssuch as rutile, and high-grade metamorphic rocksare found throughout the Appalachians. Placer de-posits are generally formed from minerals dispersedin rock units, when great amounts of rock have beenreduced by weathering over very long periods oftime.

Time is a factor in the formation of placer de-posits in several respects. In addition to theirchemistry, the resistance of minerals to weather-ing is time and climate dependent. In a geomor-phologically mature environment where a broadshelf is adjacent to a wide coastal plain of low re-lief, such as the middle and southern Atlantic mar-gin, the most resistant heavy minerals will be foundto dominate placer deposit composition. Thesewould include the chemically stable placer mineralssuch as the precious metals, rutile, zircon, mona-zite, and tourmaline. Less resistant heavy minerals,such as amphiboles, garnets, and pyroxenes, which

are more abundant in igneous rock, dominateheavy mineral assemblages in more immature tec-tonically active areas such as the Pacific coast.These minerals are currently of less economic in-terest.

Placer deposits are frequently classified into threegroups based on their physical and hydraulic char-acteristics. The first group is the heaviest mineralssuch as gold, platinum, and cassiterite (tin oxide).Because of their high specific gravities, which rangefrom 6.8 to 21, these minerals are deposited fairlynear their source rock and tend to concentrate instream channels. For gold and platinum, the me-dian distance of transport is probably on the orderof 10 miles.8 Heavy minerals with a lighter specificgravity, in the range of 4.2 to 5.3, form the sec-ond group and tend to concentrate in beach depos-its; but they also can be found at considerable dis-tances from shore in areas where sediments havebeen worked and reworked through several ero-sional and depositional cycles. Minerals of eco-nomic importance in this group include chromite,rutile, ilmenite, monazite, and zircon.9 The thirdgroup is the gemstones of which diamonds are themajor example. These are very resistant to weather-ing, but are of relatively low specific gravity in therange of 2.5 to 4.1.

As a first step in assessing placer minerals re-sources potential in the Canadian offshore, a setof criteria was developed and the criteria were listedaccording to their relative importance. A rank-ing scheme was then adopted to assess the impli-cations of each criterion with regard to the likeli-hood of a placer occurring offshore (table 2-3). Thisapproach can be applied to the U.S. EEZ.

‘K. O. Emery and L.C. Noakes, “Economic Placer Deposits onthe Continental Shelf, United Nations Economic Commission forAsia and the Far East, Technical Bulletin, vol. 1, 1968, pp. 95-111.

‘Rutile and ilmenite are major titanium minerals (along with leu-coxene), and monazite is a source of yttrium and rare earth elementswhich have many catalytic applications in addition to uses in metal-lurgy, ceramics, electronics, nuclear engineering, and other areas. Zir-con is used for facings on foundry molds, in ceramics and other refrac-tory applications, and in several chemical products. Zircon is alsoprocessed for zirconium and halfnium metal, which are used in nu-clear components and other specialized applications in jet engines,reentry vehicles, cutting tools, chemical processing equipment, andsuperconducting magnets.

IOP. B. Hale and P. McLaren, “A Preliminary Assessment of Un-consolidated Mineral Resources in the Canadian Offshore, Cl&fBulletin, September 1984, p. 11.


Table 2-3.—Criteria Used in the Assessment of Placer Minerals

Information required

Criterion Implication a Types and sources.- . . . . -. . .1. Presence in marine sediments or

interest

2. Mineral presence in onlandunconsolidated deposits close tothe shoreline

3. Presence of drowned riverchannels and strandlines offshoreof coastal host rocks

4. Occurrence in source rock close toshore

5. Presence of unconsolidatedsediments seaward of onland hostrocks

6. Evidence of preglacial regolithsand mature weathering of bedrock

7. Sea-level fluctuations:(i) Transgression

(ii) Stable sea level

(iii) Regression

8. High-energy marine

9. Previously glaciated

10. Ice cover

11. Circulation patterns

12. Climate

+ + + Direct evidence

+ + + Alluvial sediments in seaward

+ +

+ ++

+

+

+

+

+

+

.

+

++

flowing watershed in glacialdeposit

With seaward flowing watershedNo watershed but previously

glaciated with offshore icemovement

Liberation of resistant heavyminerals from bedrock forsubsequent transportation andconcentration

For preservation of relict fluvialplacers now submerged

For formation of a contemporarybeach placer

For formation of a contemporaryriver mouth placer

For formation of a contemporaryplacer

For preservation of a relict placer

Glacial ice tends to scour out,disseminate or bury the heavyminerals

In some circumstances glaciationliberates heavy minerals andtransports them to considerabledistance to the offshore

Generally the longer the ice-freeperiod the greater potential togenerate a marine placer

Important to the maturity of themineral assemblage

Onsite bottom samples

Historical placer mining records,geological reports

High-resolution seismic surveys,detailed hydrographic surveys

CANMINDEX geological reports,mining records, topographicmaps, surficial geology maps

Offshore surficial geology maps,seismic records

Reports of residual deposits andearlier formed regoliths

Geological reports, air photos, tiderecords



Regional wave climates

Geological reports, surficialgeology maps

Ice cover maps

Current maps

Paleoclimatic maps

aA relative ranking scheme wag adopted to assess the irnpllmtlorls of each factor with regards to the likelihood of a placer occurring in the offshore. Favorable indicationsare as follows: + + + extremely favorable, + + + very favorabie and, + favorable. Factors Iikeiy to detract from the possibility of an offshore placer utiiize a similarapproach with a negative sign.

SOURCE: Modified from Peter B. Hale and Patrick McLaren, “A Preliminary Assessment of Unconsolidated Mineral Resources in the Canadian Off shore,” C/M Bu//efirr,September 19S4, p. 7.

Recent studies of heavy minerals in Atlantic con-tinental shelf sediments have found mineral assem-blages in the north Atlantic region dominated byless chemically stable minerals. The relatively im-mature mineral assemblages result from the directglaciation that the northern shelf recently received.In general, glacial debris is less well sorted and oftencontains fresher mineral assemblages than sedi-ment, which has been exposed to fluvial transport

and weathering processes over a long period oftime. While data for the north Atlantic region aretoo limited to be conclusive in terms of potentialresources, greater concentrations of heavy mineralsare found south of Long Island (figure 2-5). Totalheavy mineral concentrations in the middle Atlanticregion reach 5 percent or more in some areas, andthe mineral assemblages show a greater degree ofweathering. In comparison to the northern regions,


Figure 2-5.—Atlantic EEZ Heavy Minerals

J- 1

Several areas of the Atlantic EEZ contain high concentrationsof heavy minerals in the surficial sediments. Further researchis needed to determine the extent of these deposits andpossible economic potential.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; A.E. Grosz, J.C, Hathaway,and EC. Escowitz, “Placer Deposits of Heavy Minerals in Atlantic Con-tinental Shelf Sediments,” Proceedings of the 18th Annual OffshoreTechnology Conference, Houston, Texas, OTC 5198, May 1988.

sediments of the southern Atlantic region containlower concentrations of heavy minerals, but the as-semblage becomes progressively more mature tothe south and, hence, more concentrated in heavyminerals of more economic interest such as tita-nium. 11 This situation suggests that the mineralcomposition of the southern Atlantic shelf regionholds the best prospects for economically attractivedeposits.

Precious Metals

Although, in general, the north Atlantic regionmay have relatively poor prospects for economicplacer deposits compared to the southern region,

11A, E, Grosz, J, C. Hathaway, and E.C. Escowitz, ‘‘Placer Depositsof Heavy Minerals in Atlantic Continental Shelf Sediments, Procee-dings of the 18th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,TX, May 5-8, 1986, pp. 387-394.

it might possibly be the most favorable area alongthe Atlantic EEZ for gold placers. Gold occurrenceshave been found in a variety of rocks along the Ap-palachians and in the maritime provinces of Can-ada, and both lode and placer gold deposits havebeen worked in areas that drain toward the coast.Because of its high specific gravity, placer gold isexpected to be near its point of origin, which wouldbe nearer to the coast in the New England area thanin southern areas where broad coastal plains aredeveloped. Further, glacial scouring and movementcould have brought gold-bearing sediment offshorewhere it could be reworked and the gold concen-trated by marine processes. While the prospects forgold placers are poor in the Atlantic EEZ, goldplacers have been found on the coastal plain in themid- and south Atlantic regions. To reach the EEZin those regions, gold would have been transportedby fluvial processes a considerable distance fromits source and, if found, probably would be veryfine-grained.

Heavy Minerals —Titanium Sands

The major area of interest for economic placerdeposits, particularly titanium minerals, would bethe middle and south Atlantic EEZ. Again the cri-teria in table 2-3 are useful. Concentrations of thecommercially sought heavy minerals have beenfound in the sediments offshore (criterion 1) andtitanium minerals mined onshore (criterion 2). Inaddition, several other criteria are also evident.These indicators would suggest a good potential forplacer deposits offshore. An interesting aspect ofthis, however, is a reconnaissance study by the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) that found significantconcentrations of heavy minerals in surface grab-samples offshore of Virginia, where no economicdeposits are found onshore.12 However, rich rutileand ilmenite placer deposits have been mined inthe drainage basin of the James River, a tributaryof Chesapeake Bay. These deposits had their sourcein anorthosite and gneisses of the Virginia BlueRidge. 13 An earlier study, which had found high

12A, E. GroSz and E. c. Escowitz, ‘‘Economic Heavy Minerals ofthe U.S. Atlantic Continental Shelf, W. F. Tanner (cd.), Proceed-ings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal Sedimentology, Florida StateUniversity, Tallahassee, FL, 1983, pp. 231-242.

13J. P. Minard, E.R. Force, and G.W. Hayes, “Alluvial IlmenitePlacer Deposits, Central Virginia, ” U.S. Geological Survey Profes-sional Paper 959-H, 1976.


concentrations of heavy minerals parallel to thepresent shoreline off the Virginia coast in waterdepths between 30 and 60 feet, hypothesized sourcesfrom the Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware River. 14

The deposit was thought to be a possible ancientstrandline where the heavy minerals were concen-trated by hydraulic fractionation.

Bottom topography may be an important clueto surface concentrations of heavy minerals. Oneinvestigation off Smith Island near the mouth ofChesapeake Bay found high concentrations of heavyminerals on the surface of a layer of fine sand thatwas distributed along the flanks of topographicridges.

15 However, coring data are needed to pro-vide information on the vertical distribution ofplacer minerals and on whether or not similar bur-ied topography is preserved and contains similarheavy mineral concentrations.

Overall, the south Atlantic EEZ would be afavorable prospective region for titanium placers,based on maturity of heavy mineral assemblages,although sediment cover is thinner and more patchythan farther north. However, individual featuressuch as submerged sand ridges could contain con-centrated deposits.

As with sand and gravel, regional resource esti-mates are probably not very useful since they arebased on gross generalizations. This caveat notwith-standing, recent studies indicate that the averageheavy mineral content of sediments on the Atlan-tic shelf is on the order of 2 percent, and that thetotal volume of sand and gravel may be larger thanearlier estimates.

16 17 These studies suggest thatwhatever the total offshore resource base is esti-mated to be, the southern Atlantic EEZ may holdconsiderable promise for titanium placer depositsof future interest, particularly in areas of paleo-stream channels where there are major gaps in the

14B, K. Goodwin and J. B. Thomas, ‘ ‘Inner Shelf Sediments Off ofChesapeake Bay III, Heavy Minerals, ” Special Scientific Report No.68, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1973, p. 34.

ISC. R. Be~uist and C. H. Hobbs! “Assessment of Ekonomic HeavyMinerals of the Virginia Inner Continental Shelf, ” Virginia Divisionof Mineral Resources Open-File Report 86-1, 1986, p. 17.

IGU S Department of the Interior, Program Feasibility Document.’. .OCS Hard Minerals Leasing, prepared for the Assistant Secretariesof Energy and Minerals and Land and Water Resources by the OCSMining Policy Phase II Task Force, August 1979, Executive Sum-mary, p. 40.

‘7 Grosz, Hathaway, and Esowitz, “Placer Deposits of HeavyMinerals in Atlantic Continental Shelf Sediments, ” p. 387,

Trail Ridge formation (a major onshore titaniumsand deposit). In any event, only high-grade, acces-sible deposits would be potentially attractive, andthe total heavy mineral assemblage would deter-mine the economics of the deposit.

Phosphorite Deposits

Sedimentary deposits consisting primarily ofphosphate minerals are called phosphorites. Theprincipal component of marine phosphorites is car-bonate fluorapatite. Marine phosphorites occur as

muds, sands, nodules, plates, and crusts, gener-ally in water depths of less than 3,300 feet. Phos-phatic minerals are also found as cement bondingother detrital minerals. Marine phosphorite depositsare related to areas of upwelling and high biopro-ductivity on the continental shelves and upperslopes, particularly in lower latitudes.

Bedded phosphorite deposits of considerable arealextent are of major economic importance in theSoutheastern United States. The bedded depositsin the Southeastern United States are related to

multiple depositional sequences in response to

transgressive and regressive sea level changes. 18

Major phosphate formation in this region beganabout 20 million years ago during the Miocene.Low-grade phosphate deposits are found in young-er surficial sediments on the continental shelf, butthese are largely reworked from underlying units.While these surface sediments are probably not ofeconomic interest, they may be important tracersfor Miocene deposits in the shallow subsurface.

On the Atlantic shelf, the northernmost area ofinterest for phosphate deposits is the Onslow Bayarea off North Carolina. (Concentrations of up to

19 percent phosphate have been reported in relictsediments on Georges Bank, but these are unlikelyto be of economic interest. ) In the Onslow Bay area,the Pungo River Formation outcrops in an north-east-southwest belt about 95 miles long by 15 to

30 miles wide and extends into the subsurface to

the east and southeast. The Pungo River Forma-tion is a major sedimentary phosphorite unit un-der the north-central coastal plain of North Caro-

IBS.R. Riggs, D.W. Lewis, A,K. Scarborough, et al., ‘‘Cyclic Depo-sition of Neogene Phosphorites in the Aurora Area, North Carolina,and Their Possible Relationship to Global Sea-Level Fluctuations,Southeastern Geology, vol. 23, No. 4, 1982, pp. 189-204.


lina. Five beds containing high phosphate valueshave been cored in two areas of Onslow Bay. Thenorthern area harboring three phosphate beds con-tains an estimated resource of 860 million short tonsof phosphate concentrate with average phosphoruspentoxide (P2O5) values of 29.7 to 31 percent. TheP2O5 content of the total sediment in these bedsranges from 3 to 6 percent. The Frying Pan areato the south contains two richer beds estimated tocontain 4.13 billion tons of phosphate concentratewith an average content of 29.2 percent P2O5.

19 TheP2O5 content of the total sediment in these bedsranges from 3 to 21 percent. Of the two areas, theFrying Pan district is given a better potential foreconomic development. The deposits are in shal-low water relatively close to shore.

Further to the south, from North Carolina toGeorgia, phosphates occur on the shelf in relictsands. Phosphate grain concentrations of 14 to 40percent have been reported in water depths of 100to 130 feet. On the Georgia shelf off, the mouthof the Savanna River, a deposit of phosphate sandsover 23 feet thick has been drilled. Other depositsnear Tyber Island, off the coast of Georgia, includea 90-foot-thick bed of phosphate in sandy clay aver-aging 32 percent phosphate overlying a 250-footthick bed of phosphatic limestone averaging 23 per-cent phosphate. Concerns over saltwater intrusioninto an underlying aquifer may constrain poten-tial development in this area.

Further offshore, the Blake Plateau is an area oflarge surficial deposits of manganese oxides andphosphorites (figure 2-6). The Plateau is swept bythe Gulf Stream and water depth ranges from 2,000feet on the northern end to nearly 4,000 feet on thesoutheastern end. Phosphorite occurs in the shal-lower western and northern portions as sands,pellets, and concretions, The northern portion ofthe Blake Plateau is estimated to contain 2.2 bil-lion tons of phosphorite.20

Off the Florida coast near Jacksonville, deep andextensive sequences of phosphate-rich sediments ex-

f gs R Riggs, s. W. P. Snyder, A.C. H ine, et al., ‘‘Geologic Frame-. .work of Phosphate Resources in Onslow Bay, North Carolina Con-tinental Shelf, Economic Geology, vol. 80, 1985, pp. 716-738.

20F. T. Manheim, “Potential Hard Mineral and Associated Re-sources on the Atlantic and Gulf Continental Margins, Program Fea-sibility Document—OCS Hard Minerals Leasing, app. 12, U.S. De-partment of Interior, 1979, p. 42.

tend eastward onto the shelf. One bed, 20 feet thickbeneath 260 feet of overburden, containing 70 to80 percent phosphate grains, was slurry test-minedin this area. A core hole 30 miles east of Jackson-ville contained a 11 5-foot section of cyclic phos-phate-rich beds with the thickest unit up to 16 feetthick. The phosphate facies ran between 30 and 70percent phosphate grains.

Deep drill data in the Osceola Basin have showntwo phosphate zones extending eastward onto thecontinental shelf. The lower grade upper zone is1,000 feet thick with 140 feet of overburden andphosphate grain concentrations of 10 to 50 per-cent of the total sediment. The higher grade deeperzone is 82 feet thick with 250 feet of overburdenand phosphate grain concentrations ranging from25 to 75 percent of total sediment.

The Miami and Pourtales Terraces off the south-east coast of Florida are also known to have phos-phate occurrences. On the Pourtales Terrace,phosphorite occurs as conglomerates, phosphaticlimestone, and phosphatized marine mammal bones.This deposit is thought to be related to the phos-phatic Bone Valley Formation onshore.

Manganese Nodules and Pavements

Ferromanganese nodules are concretions of ironand manganese oxides containing nickel, copper,cobalt, and other metals that are found in deepocean basins and in some shallower areas such asthe Blake Plateau off the Southeastern UnitedStates. On the Blake Plateau, nodule concretionsare found at depths of 2,000 to 3,300 feet; and theircenters commonly are phosphoritic. Ferroman-ganese crusts and pavements are more common atshallower depths of around 1,600 feet. The fer-romanganese concretions of the Blake Plateau arewell below the metal values found in the prime nod-ule sites in the Pacific Ocean, but the Blake Pla-teau offers the advantages of much shallower depthsand proximity to the U.S. continent. Potential fer-romanganese nodule resources on the Blake Pla-teau are estimated to be on the order of 250 billiontons averaging O. 1 percent copper, 0.4 percentnickel, 0.3 percent cobalt, and 15 percent man-ganese.21

“I bid., p. 15.


Figure 2-6.–Potential Hard Mineral Resources of the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific EEZs

Explanation

Knownoccurrence

Placers o2

Phosphorites o3

Mn-nodules o4

Co-crusts o5

Likelyoccurrence

1

2

3

4

56

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Symposium Proceedings —A National Program for the Assessment and Develop-

ment of the Mineral Resources of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone, ” US. Geological Survey Circular 929, 1983.

PUERTO RICO AND THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are partof an island arc complex with narrow insular shelves.The geologic environment of this type of active plateboundary suggests that sand and gravel depositswould not be extensive and that placer mineral as-semblages would be relatively immature.

Sand and Gravel

Modern and relict nearshore delta deposits arethe main source of offshore sediment for bothPuerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Furtheroffshore the elastic sediments contain increasing

amounts of carbonate material. In general, the is-lands lack large offshore sand deposits because waveaction and coastal currents tend to rework andtransport the sand across the narrow shelves intodeep water. Submarine canyons also play a role inproviding a conduit through which sand migratesoff the shelf. The outer edge of the shelves is at awater depth of around 330 feet.

Three major sand bodies are located on the shelfof Puerto Rico in water depths of less than 65 feet.As one might expect in an area of westward mov-ing winds and water currents, all three deposits areat the western ends of islands. Inferred resources


have been calculated for two of these areas, theCabo Rojo area off the west end of the south coastof Puerto Rico and the Escollo de Arenas area northof the west end of Vieques Island (near the eastcoast of Puerto Rico). The total volume of sand inthese deposits is estimated at 220 million cubicyards, which could supply Puerto Rico’s construc-tion needs for over 20 years .22

In the U.S. Virgin Islands, several sand bodiescontain an estimated total of 60 million cubic yards.Some of the more promising are located off thesouthwest coast of St, Thomas, near Buck Island,and on the southern shelf of St. Croix.

‘2R. W. Rodriguez, ‘ ‘Submerged Sand Resources of Puerto Ricoin USGS Highlights in Marine Research, USGS Circular 938, 1984,~Q. 57-63.

Placer Deposits

Heavy mineral studies along the north coast ofPuerto Rico found a strong seaward sorting withrelatively heavy minerals such as monazite andmagnetite enriched on the inner shelf relative topyroxenes and amphiboles. The high degree ofnearshore sorting may indicate a likelihood of theoccurrence of placers, particularly in the inner shelfzone. 23 Gold has been mined in the drainage ba-sin of the Rio de La Plata which discharges to thenorth coast of Puerto Rico, although no gold placersas yet have been found on the coast.

NO, H. pilkey and R. Lincoln, “Insular Shelf Heavy Mineral Par-titioning Northern Puerto Rico, “ Marine Mining, vol. 4, No. 4, 1984,pp. 403-414.

GULF OF MEXICO REGION

The Gulf of Mexico is a small ocean basin whosecontinental margins are structurally complex and,in some cases, rather unique. The major structuralfeature of the U.S. EEZ in the northern Gulf ofMexico is the vast amount of sediment that accu-mulated while the region was subsiding. The struc-tural complexity of the northern Gulf margin wasenhanced by the mobility of underlying salt bedsthat were deposited when the region was a shallowsea. In general, the sedimentary beds dip andthicken southward and are greatly disrupted by di-apiric structures and by flexures and faults of re-gional extent.

Sulfur and salt are both recovered from beddedevaporite deposits and salt domes in the Gulf re-gion. Sulfur is generally extracted by the Fraschhot water process, which is easily adaptable to oper-ation from an offshore platform. Sulfur has beenrecovered from offshore Louisiana and could bemore widely recovered from offshore deposits if themarket were favorable.

Sand and Gravel

The sand and gravel resources of the Gulf ofMexico are even more poorly characterized thanthe Atlantic EEZ. Most of the shallow sedimentaryand geomorphological features of the Gulf weresimilarly developed as a result of the sea-level fluc-

tuations during the Quaternary. The MississippiRiver dominates the sediment discharge into thenorthern Gulf of Mexico. Over time, the Missis-sippi River has shifted its discharge point, leavingancestral channels and a complex delta system. Aschannels shift, abandoned deltas and associated bar-rier islands are reworked and eroded, formingblanket-type sand deposits and linear shoals.24 Anumber of these shoals having a relief of 15 to 30feet are found off Louisiana. Relict channels andbeaches are also good prospects for sand deposits.Relict channels and deltas have been identified offGalveston, containing over 78 million cubic yardsof fine grained sand which may have uses for beachreplenishment or glass sand. Sand and gravel re-source estimates for the U.S. EEZ are given in ta-ble 2-4. Based on an average thickness of 16 feet,these are projected to be around 350 billion cubicyards of sand for the Gulf EEZ. No gravel resourcesare identified on the Gulf shelf although offshoreshell deposits are common and have been minedas a source of lime. Until more surveys aimed atevaluating specific sand and gravel deposits are con-ducted, resource estimates are little more than aneducated guess. In any event, the resource base islarge, although meeting coarser size specificationsmay be a limiting factor in some areas.

2+ Williams, ‘ ‘Sand and Gravel Deposits Within the United StatesExclusive Economic Zone, p. 381._


Table 2-4.—Estimates of Sand and Gravel ResourcesWithin the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

VolumesProvince (cubic meters)

Atlantic:Maine—Long Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 billionNew Jersey—South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 190 billionSouth Carolina—Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 billion

Gulf of Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 billion

Caribbean:Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .> 46 millionPuerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 million

Pacific:Southern California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 billionNorthern California—Washington . . . insufficient data

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 160 billion

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 billionSOURCE: Modified after S.J. Williams, “Sand and Gravel Deposits Within the

United States Exclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessment andUses,” 18th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX,1986, pp. 377-386.

Placer Deposits

Although reconnaissance surveys have not beenconducted over much of the region, concentrationsof heavy minerals have been found in a numberof locations in the Gulf of Mexico. Several offshoresand bars or shoals are found off Dog Island, SaintGeorge Island, and Cape San Bias in northwesternFlorida that may contain concentrations of heavyminerals .25 Some of these shoals are believed to bedrowned barrier islands.

One recent survey of the shelf off northwestFlorida found heavy mineral concentrations asso-ciated with shoal areas offshore of Saint George andSanta Rosa Islands. *G The heavy minerals of eco-

Z5W. F. Tanner, A. Mu]]ins, and J. D. Bates, ‘‘Possible MaskedHeavy Mineral Deposit: Florida Panhandle, ” ~conornk Geology, vol.

56, 1961, pp. 1079-1087.MJ. D. Arthur, s. Melkote, J. Applegate, et al., ‘‘Heavy Miner~

Reconnaissance Off the Coast of the Apalachicola River Delta, North-west Florida, ” Florida Bureau of Geology in Cooperation with U.S.Minerals Management Service, Contract No. 14-12-001-30115, Aug.16, 1985 (unpublished).

nomic interest totaled about 39 percent of the heavymineral fraction averaged over the study area.However, the percentages of heavy minerals andthe composition of the heavy mineral sites reportedare lower and of less economic interest, respectively,than those on the Atlantic shelf. Sediments derivedfrom the Mississippi River off Louisiana containheavy mineral fractions in which ilmenite and zir-con are concentrated. In the western part of theGulf, less economically interesting heavy mineralsof the amphibole and pyroxene groups are domi-nant. 27

An aggregate heavy-mineral sand resource esti-mate was not attempted for the gulf coast as partof the Department of the Interior’s Program Fea-sibility Study for Outer Continental Shelf hardminerals leasing done in 1979. Too little data areavailable and aggregate numbers are not verymeaningful in terms of potentially recoverable re-sources.


Recent seismic studies indicate that the phos-phate-bearing Bone Valley Formation extends ata relatively shallow depth at least 25 miles into theGulf of Mexico and the west Florida continentalshelf. An extensive Miocene sequence also extendsacross the shelf, and Miocene phosphorite has beendredged from outcrops on the mid-slope. This sit-uation would suggest that the west Florida shelf mayhave considerable potential for future phosphate ex-ploration.

28 Core data would be needed to assessthis region more fully.

27R. G. BeauChamp and M.J. Cruickshank, ‘‘Placer Minerals onthe U.S. Continental Shelves—Opportunity for Development,Proceedings OCEANS ’83, vol. II, 1983, pp. 698-702.

26W .C. Burnett, “Phosphorites in the U.S. Exclusive EconomicZone, ” Proceedings, the Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium Ex-ploring the New Ocean Frontier, held at Smithsonian Institution,Washington, DC, October 1985 (Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Commerce, May 1986), pp. 135-140.

PACIFIC REGION

The continental margin along the Pacific coast tensional complex of basins, islands, banks, ridges,and Alaska has several subregions. Southern Cali- and submarine canyons. Tectonically, this regionfornia, from Mexico northward to Point Concep- is undergoing lateral or transform movement alongtion, is termed a ‘‘borderland, a geomorphic ex- the San Andreas fault system. The offshore base-


ment (deep) rocks include metasediments, schist,andesites, and dacites. Thick sequences of Tertiarysediments were deposited in deep marine basinsthroughout the region. The shelf is fairly narrow(3 to 12 miles) and is transected by several subma-rine canyons extending to the edge of the shelf.From Point Conception north along the moun-tainous coast to Monterey Bay, the shelf is quitenarrow in places, but north of San Francisco toCape Mendocino it widens again to 6 to 25 miles.The coast in this area is generally rugged with afew lowland areas along river valleys. Wave energyis high along the entire coast and uplifted wave-cut terraces indicating former higher stands of sealevel are common.

Northward along the coast of Oregon, the con-tinental shelf is as narrow as 6 miles and averagesless than 18 miles in width. Off Washington, theshelf gradually widens to over 30 miles and is un-derlain by a varied terrain of sedimentary rocks,mafic and ultramafic intrusive, and granite rocks.The Washington coast also has been influenced byglaciation, and glacial till and alluvium extend outonto the shelf. The Columbia River is a majorsource of sediment in the southern Washington andnorthern Oregon region. Beyond the shelf, butwithin the U.S. EEZ, the seafloor spreading centersof the Gorda and Juan de Fuca ridges and relatedsubduction zones at the base of the continental slopecontribute to the tectonic activity of the region.

Sand and Gravel

The narrow continental shelf and high waveenergy along the Pacific coast limit the prospectsfor recovering a great abundance of sand and gravelfrom surficial deposits. In southern California, de-posits of sand and gravel at water depths shallowenough to be economic are present on the SanPedro, San Diego, and Santa Monica shelves. Mostcoarse material suitable for construction aggregateis found in relict blanket, deltaic, and channel de-posits off the mouth of major rivers. One depositof coarse sand and gravel within 10 miles of SanDiego Bay in less than 65 feet of water has beensurveyed and estimated to contain 26 million cu-bic yards of aggregate. Total resource estimates forthe southern California region indicate about 40billion cubic yards of sand and gravel .29 However,

‘gWilliams, “Sand and Gravel Deposits Within the U.S. ExclusiveEconomic Zone, ” p. 382.

excessive amounts of overlying fine sand or mud,high wave energy, and unfavorable water depthmay all reduce the economically recoverable ma-terial by as much as an order of magnitude. Indi-vidual deposits would need to be studied for theirsize, quality, and accessibility.

Sand and gravel resource estimates for northernCalifornia are based primarily on surface informa-tion with little or no data on depth and variabilityof the deposits. As is typical elsewhere, the sandand gravel deposits are both relict and recent. Muchof the relict material appears to be too coarse tohave been deposited by transport mechanisms oper-ative at the present depth of the outer continentalshelf.30 These relict sands are thought to be near-shore bars and beach deposits formed during lowerstands of sea level in the Pleistocene. Recent coarsematerial is nearer the coast and generally depos-ited parallel to the coastline by longshore currents.Sand and gravel estimates for the northern Cali-fornia shelf, assuming an average thickness of about1 yard, are 84 million cubic yards of gravel, 542million cubic yards of coarse sand, and 2.6 billioncubic yards of medium sand.31 Most of this mate-rial would lie in State waters.

Off the coast of Oregon and Washington, sealevel fluctuations and glaciation controlled the loca-tion of coarse sand and gravel deposits. Most ofthe gravel lies to the north off Washington, whereit was deposited in broad outwash fans by glacialmeltwater streams when the sea level was about 650feet lower than present. Promising gravel resourceareas convenient to both Portland and Seattle areoff Gray’s Harbor, Washington, and the southernOlympic Mountains. Smaller gravel deposits offOregon lie in swales between submarine banks inrelict reworked beach deposits. Little data on thethickness of individual deposits are available, butgeneral information on the thickness of outwash andbeach sediments in the area suggest that estimatesof 3 to 15 feet average thickness are reasonable .32

‘OS.G. Martindale and H.D. Hess, “Resource Assessment: Sand,Gravel, and Shell Deposits on the Continental Shelf of Northern andCentral California, ” Program Feasibility Document—OCS HardMinerals L-easing, app. 9, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979, p. 5.

311 bid., p. 7.32G. W. Moore and M.D. Luken, “Offshore Sand and Gravel Re-

sources of the Pacific Northwest, Program Feasibility Document—OCS Hard Minerals Leasing, app. 7, U.S. Department of the In-terior, 1979, p. 8.

72-672 0 - 87 -- 3


Precious Metals

Placer deposits containing precious metals havebeen found throughout the Pacific coastal regionboth offshore and along modern day beaches (fig-ure 2-6). In the south, streams in the southern Cali-fornia borderland drain a coastal region of sand-stone and mudstone marine sediments and graniticintrusive. These source rocks do not offer muchhope of economically significant precious metal con-centrations offshore, and fluvial placers have notbeen important in this area. North of Point Con-ception, gold placers have been worked and addi-tional deposits might be found offshore.

The most promising region along the Pacificcoast of the coterminous States is likely to be offnorthern California and southern Oregon wheresediments from the Klamath Mountains are depos-ited. The Klamath Mountains are excellent sourcerocks containing, among other units, podiformultramafic intrusive, which are thought to be thesource of the platinum placers found in the region.Gold-bearing diorite intrusive are also present andprovide economically interesting source rocks. Plati-num and gold placers have both been mined frombeaches in the region. In some areas, small flecksof gold appear in offshore surface sediments.

Several small gold and platinum beach placershave been mined on the coast of Washington fromdeposits which may have been supplied by glaciallytransported material from the north. The Olym-pic Mountains are not particularly noted for theirore mineralization, but gold and chromite-bearingrocks are found in the Cascades.

Two questions remain: do offshore deposits ex-ist? and, if so, are they economic? For heavierminerals such as gold or platinum, only very fine-grained material is likely to be found offshore. Goldis not uncommon on Pacific beaches from north-ern California to Washington, but is often too fine-grained and too dispersed to be economically re-covered at present. However, some experts also ar-gue that in areas undergoing both uplift and cyclicglaciation and erosion, such as the shelf off south-ern Oregon, there may be several cycles of retrain-ment and progressive transport which could alloweven the coarser grains of the precious metals tobe transported some distance seaward on the shelf.33

33K. C. Bowman, ‘ ‘Evaluation of Heavy Minerat Concentrationson the Southern Oregon Continental Shelf, ” Proceedings, Eighch An-

Black Sand—Chromite Deposits

Chromite-rich black sands are found in relictbeach deposits in uplifted marine terraces and inmodern beach deposits along the coast of southernOregon. The terrace deposits were actively minedfor their chromium content during World War 11.Remaining onshore deposits are not of current eco-nomic interest. However, there are indications thatoffshore deposits may be of future economic inter-est. Geologic factors in the development of placerdeposits in relatively high-energy coastal regimesoffer clues to chromite resource expectations in theEEZ.

Geologic Considerations

The ultimate source of chromite in the blacksands found along the Oregon coast of Coos andCurry counties is the more or less serpentinizedultramafic rock in the Klamath Mountains. How-ever much of the chromite in the beach depositsappears to have been reworked from Tertiarysedimentary rocks. 34 Chromite eroded out of theperidotites and serpentine of the Klamath Moun-tains was deposited in Tertiary sediments. Changesin sea level eroded these deposits and the chromitewas released again and concentrated into depositsby wind, wave, and current action. These depos-its have been uplifted and preserved in the presentterraces and beach deposits.

This reworking through deposition, erosion, andredeposition is an important consideration in theformation of offshore placer deposits. Not only doesreworking allow for the accumulation of more min-erals of economic value over time, but it also al-lows the less resistant (and generally less valuable)heavy minerals such as pyroxenes and amphibolesto break down and thus not dilute or lower thegrade of the deposit.

The river systems in the region were largely re-sponsible for eroding and transporting the heavyminerals from the Klamath Mountains. Once inthe marine environment, reworking of minerals wasenhanced during periods of continental glaciationwhen the sea level fluctuated and the shoreline

nual Conference, Marine Technology Society, 1972, pp. 237-253.34A. B. Griggs, “Chromite-Bearing Sands of the Southern Part of

the Coast of Oregon, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 945-E, pp.113-150.


retreated and advanced across the shelf at least fourtimes. During these glacial periods, high rainfall,probable alpine glaciation in the higher Klamathpeaks, and increased stream gradients from loweredbase levels all contributed to accelerated erosion ofthe source area. Concentrations of heavy opaqueminerals along the outer edge of the continentalshelf off southern Oregon demonstrate the trans-port capacity of the pluvial-glacial streams duringlow stands of the sea.

35 High discharge and low

stands of sea also allow for the formation of chan-nel deposits on the shelf. During high interglacialstands of the sea, estuarine entrapment of sedimentsis a larger factor in the distribution of heavy min-erals in the coastal environment. Each transgres-sion and regression of the sea has the opportunityto rework relict or previously formed deposits. Pres-ervation of these deposits is related to changes inthe energy intensity of their environment.

While most geologists agree that uplifted beachterrace deposits and submerged offshore depositsare secondary sources of resistant heavy mineralsin the formation of placer deposits, questions re-main about which secondary source is more impor-tant. Differing views on the progressive enrichmentof placer deposits have implications for locating con-centrations of heavy minerals of economic value.One view is that each sea-level transgression re-works and concentrates on the shelf the heavy min-erals laid down earlier, and any deposits producedduring the more recent transgression are likely tobe richer or more extensive than the raised terracedeposits that served as secondary sources since theiremergence. This concentration effect would espe-cially include those deposits now offshore whichcould be enriched by a winnowing process that re-moves the finer, lighter material, thereby concen-trating the heavy minerals.36 The other view is thatoffshore deposits are likely to be reworked as the

sea level rises and heavy mineral concentrations informer beaches tend to move shoreward with thetransgressing shore zone so that then the modernbeaches would be richest in potentially economicheavy minerals. In this view, offshore depositswould be important secondary sources to the mod-

351 bid., p. 241.tcBowman, Ev~uation of Heavy Mineraf Concentrations on the

Southern Oregon Continental Shelf, p. 243.

ern beaches, and raised terraces would be the nextrichest in heavy minerals. 37

Prospects for Future Development

The black sand deposits that were mined forchromite in the past offer a clue as to the natureof the deposits that might be found offshore. Dur-ing World War II, approximately 450,000 tons of

crude sand averaging about 10 percent chromiteor 5 percent chromic oxide (Cr2O3) were produced.This yielded about 52,000 tons of concentrate at

37 to 39 percent Cr2O3. The chromium to iron ra-tio of the concentrate was 1.6:1. A number of in-vestigators have examined other onshore deposits.The upraised terraces near Bandon, Oregon, havebeen assessed for their chromite content with theaid of a drilling program. Over 2, 1 million tons of

sand averaging 3 to 7 percent Cr2O3 is estimatedfor this 15-mile area.

38 Deposit thicknesses range

from 1 to 20 feet, and associated minerals includemagnetite, ilmenite, garnet, and zircon.

In a minerals availability appraisal of chromium,the U.S. Bureau of Mines assessed the southwestOregon beach sands as having demonstrated re-sources (reserve base) of 11,935,000 short tons ofmineralized material with a contained Cr 2O 3 con-tent of 666,000 tons.39 In the broader category ofidentified resources, the Oregon beach sands con-tain 50,454,000 tons of mineralized material witha Cr2O 3 content of 2,815,000 tons. None of thebeach sand material is ranked as reserves becauseit is not economically recoverable at current prices.If recovered, the demonstrated resources wouldamount to a little over one year’s current domes-tic chromium consumption.

Another indication of the nature of potential Ore-gon offshore deposits comes from studies of coastalterrace placers, modern beach deposits, and off-shore current patterns. In general, longshore cur-rents tend to concentrate heavy minerals along thesouthern side of headlands. This concentration is

37 Emery and Noakes, “Economic Placer Deposits on the ContinentalShelf, ” p. 107.

‘8 Bowman, “Evaluation of Heavy Mineral Concentrations on (heSouthern Oregon Continental Shelf, ” pp. 242-243.

39J. F, Lemons, Jr, , E. H. Boyle, Jr. , and CC. Kilgore, ‘ ‘Chro-mium Availability—Domestic, A Minerals Availability System Ap-praisal, “ U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular, IC 8895, 1982,p. 4.


thought to be the result of differential seasonal long-shore transport and shoreline orientation with re-gard to storm swell approach and zones of deceler-ating longshore currents. In addition, platformgradient also influences the distribution of placersands, with steeper gradients increasing placerthickness. Similarly, the formation of offshoreplacer deposits would be determined by paleo-shoreline position and geometry, platform gradient,and paleo-current orientation .40

Bathymetric data indicate several wave-cutbenches left from former still stands of sea level.Concentrations of heavy minerals that may be re-lated to submerged beach deposits have been foundin water depths ranging from 60 to 490 feet. Sur-face samples of these deposits have black sand con-centrations of 10 to 30 percent or more, and someare associated with magnetic anomalies indicatinga likelihood of black sand placers within sedimentthicknesses ranging from 3 to 115 feet. In addition,gold is found in surface sediments in some of theseareas. These submerged features would be likelyprospects for high concentrations of chromite andpossibly for associated gold or platinum.

Several Oregon offshore areas containing con-centrations of chromite-bearing black sands in thesurface sediment have been mapped. These areasrange from less than 1 square mile to over 80 squaremiles in areal extent, and they are found from CapeFerrelo north to the Coquille River, with the largestarea nearly 25 miles long, centered along the coastoff the Rogue River. If metal tenor (content) in-creases with depth, as some investigators expect,there may be considerable potential for economi-cally interesting deposits offshore. Also dependingon the value of any associated heavy minerals, chro-mite might be recovered either as the primary prod-uct or as the byproduct of other minerals extraction.

Other Heavy Minerals

North of Point Conception in California, a fewsmall ultramafic bodies are found within coastaldrainage basins. Heavy mineral fractions in beachand stream sediments are relatively high in titanium

+OC. D. peterson, G. W, Gleeson, and N. Wetzel, ‘‘Stratigr-aphicDevelopment, Mineral Sources, and Preservation of Marine Placersfrom Pleistocene Terraces in Southern Oregon, USA, ” SedimentaryGeology, in press.

minerals associated with monazite and zircon, andsmall quantities of chromite have been found.Titanium minerals have been mined from beachsands in this area in the past.

The Klamath Mountains of southwestern Ore-gon and northwestern California contain a com-plex of sedimentary, metasedimentary, metavol-canic, granitoid, and serpentinized ultramafic rocksthat are the source of most, if not all, of the heavyminerals and free metals found on the continentalshelf in that region. In addition to metallic gold,platinum metals, and chromite discussed previ-ously, these minerals include ilmenite, magnetite,garnet, and zircon. Abrasion during erosion andtransport of these minerals is minimal, and theyare generally resistant to chemical weathering.

Another area of interest for heavy mineral placerdeposits is off the mouth of the Columbia River.The Columbia River drains a large and geologi-cally diverse region and its sediments dominate thecoastal areas of northern Oregon and southernWashington. A large concentration of titanium-richblack sand has been reported on the shelf south ofthe Columbia River.

41 Sand from this deposit hasbeen found to average about 5 percent ilmenite and10 to 15 percent magnetite. Several other smallerareas on the Oregon shelf containing high heavymineral concentrations lie seaward of or adjacentto river systems. Estimates of heavy mineral con-tent on the Oregon shelf suggest a potential of sev-eral million tons each of ilmenite, rutile, and zir-con. 42

Chromite, ilmenite, and magnetite are also foundin heavy mineral placers on the Washington coast.Five areas on the Washington shelf contain ano-malously high concentrations of heavy minerals.Three areas south of the Hoh River and off Gray’sHarbor are at depths of 60 to 170 feet and prob-ably represent beach deposits formed during lowstands of the sea. Two more areas are near themouth of the Columbia River.

41R. L.. Phillips, “Heavy Minerals and Bedrock Minerals on theContinental Shelf off Washington, Oregon, and California, ” ProgramFeasibility Document—OCS Hard Minerals Leasing, app. B, U.S.Department of the Interior, 1979, pp. 14-17.

4Z~auchmp and Cruickshank, “Placer Minerals on the U.S. Con-tinental Shelves—Opportunity for Development, p. 700.



The southern portion of the California border-land is well known for marine phosphorite depos-its. The deposits are located on the tops of the nu-merous banks in areas relatively free of sediment.The phosphorites are Miocene in age and are gen-erally found in water depths between 100 and 1,300feet. The deposits consist of sand, pebbles, biologi-cal remains, and phosphorite nodules. Relativelyrich surficial nodule deposits averaging 27 percentP2O5 are found on the Coronado, Thirty Mile andForty Mile banks, and west of San Diego. Estimatesbased on available data on grade and extent of themajor deposits known in the region indicate a re-source base of approximately 72 million tons ofphosphate nodules and 57 million tons of phosphaticsands .43 However, because assumptions were nec-essary to derive these tonnages, these estimatesshould be regarded as being within only an orderof magnitude of the actual resource potential of thearea. Further sampling and related investigationsare necessary to define the resource base more ac-curately.

Phosphorite deposits are also found further northoff central California at water depths of 3,300 to4,600 feet. These deposits, located off PescaderoPoint, on Sur Knoll and Twin Knolls, range inP2O5 content from 11.5 to 31 percent, with an aver-age content of 24 percent .44 However, their patchydistribution and occurrence at relatively great waterdepths make them economically less attractive thanthe deposits off the southern California shore.

Polymetallic Sulfide Deposits

‘‘Polymetallic sulfide ‘‘ is a popular term used todescribe the suites of intimately associated sulfideminerals that have been found in geologically ac-tive areas of the oceanfloor. The relatively recentdiscovery of the seabed sulfide deposits was not anaccident. The discovery confirmed years of researchand suggestions regarding geological and geochem-ical processes at the ocean ridges. Research related

43H. D. Hess, ‘ ‘Preliminary Resource Assessment—Phosphoritesof the Southern California Borderland, Program Feasibility DOCU-

ment—OCS Hard Minerals Leasing, app. 11, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, 1978, p. 21.

44H ,T, h4uHins and R. F. Rasch, ‘ ‘Sea-Floor Phosphorites alongthe Central California Continental Margin, Economic Geology, vol.

80, 1985, pp. 696-715.

to: 1) separation of oceanic plates, 2) magma up-welling at the ocean ridges, 3) chemical evolutionof seawater, and 4) land-based ore deposits thatwere once submarine, has contributed to and cul-minated in hypotheses of seawater circulation andmineral deposition at ocean spreading centers thatclosely fit recent observations. Much of the currentinterest in the marine polymetallic sulfides stemsfrom the dynamic nature of the processes of for-mation and their role in hypotheses of the evolu-tion of the Earth’s crust. An understanding of theconditions resulting in the formation of these ma-rine sulfides allows geologists to better predict theoccurrence of other marine deposits and to betterunderstand the processes that formed similar ter-restrial deposits.


The Gorda Ridge and possibly part of the Juande Fuca Ridge (pending unsettled boundary claims)are within the EEZ of the United States. They arepart of the seafloor spreading ridge system that ex-tends over 40,000 miles through the world’s oceans.These spreading centers are areas where moltenrock (less dense than the solid, cold ocean crust)rises to the seafloor from depth, as the plates moveapart. Plates move apart from one another at differ-ent rates, ranging from 1 to 6 inches per year.Limited evidence suggests that the relative rate ofspreading has an influence on the type, distribu-tion, and nature of the hydrothermal depositsformed, and that significant differences can be ex-pected between slow-spreading centers and inter-mediate- to fast-spreading centers .45

The mineralization process involves the interac-tion of ocean water with hot oceanic crust. Simply

stated, ocean water percolates downward throughfractures in the solid ocean crust. Heated at depth,the water interacts with the rock, leaching metals.Key to the creation of an ore deposit, the metalsbecome more concentrated in the percolating waterthan they are in the surrounding rocks. The hot(300 to 400° centigrade) metal-laden brine movesupward and mixes with the cold ocean water, caus-ing the metals to precipitate, forming sulfide min-

——45P. A. Rona, “Hydrothermal Mineralization at Slow-Spreading

Centers: Red Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Indian Ocean, Marine A4in-ing, vol. 5, No. 2, 1985, pp. 117-145.


Figure 2-7.— Formation of MarinePolymetallic Sulfide Deposits

The Juan de Fuca and Gorda Ridges are active spreadingcenters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California.Polymetallic sulfides are formed at spreading centers, whereseawater heated by magma circulates through the rocks ofthe seafloor dissolving many minerals and depositingmassive sulfide bodies containing zinc, copper, iron, lead,cadmium, and silver. Such sulfide deposits have been foundon the Juan de Fuca Ridge within the EEZ of Canada and onthe Gorda Ridge within the U.S. EEZ.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S7; Champ, Dillon, end Howell, “Non-Living Resources: Minerals, Oil, and Gas,”

volume 27, number 4, winter 19S4/S5.

erals along cracks, crusts on the oceanfloor, orchimneys or stacks (figure 2-7). High temperaturessuggest little or no mixing with cold seawater be-fore the solutions exit through the vents.

The degree to which the ore solution is dilutedin the subsurface depends on the porosity or frac-turing of the near surface rock and also determinesthe final exit temperature and composition of thehydrothermal fluids. The fluid ranges from man-ganese-rich in extreme dilution to iron-dominatedat intermediate dilution levels to sulfide depositionwhen little dilution occurs. In support of these ob-servations, investigators have found sulfide depo-sition at the vents with manganese oxide depositsfarther away from the seawater-hydrothermal fluidinterface. 46 Iron oxides are often found in associa-

tion with, but at a distance from, the active ventand sulfide mineralization.

An important control on the location of hydro-thermal mineralization, either beneath or on theseafloor at a spreading center, is whether the sub-seafloor hydrothermal convection system is leakyor tight. In leaky high-intensity hydrothermal sys-tems, seawater penetrates downward through frac-tures in the crust and mixes with upwelling primaryhydrothermal solutions, causing precipitation of dis-seminated, stockwork, and possibly massive copper-iron-zinc sulfides beneath the seafloor. Dilute, low-temperature solutions depleted in metals dischargethrough vents to precipitate stratiform iron andmanganese oxides, hydroxide, and silicate depos-its on the seafloor and suspended particulate mat-ter enriched in iron and manganese in the watercolumn.47 In tight, high-intensity hydrothermal sys-

tems, primary hydrothermal solutions undergo neg-ligible mixing with normal seawater beneath theseafloor and discharge through vents to precipitatemassive copper-iron-zinc sulfide deposits on theseafloor and suspended particulate matter enrichedin various metals in the water column.

Pacific Rise Study Group, Processes of the Mid-Ocean Ridge, ” Science, vol. 213, July 3, 1981, pp. 31-40.

47 Rena, “Hydrothermal Mineralization at Slow-Spreading Centers:Red Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Indian Ocean, ” p. 123.


Table 2-5.—Estimates of Typical Grades of Contained Metals for Seafloor MassiveSulfide Deposits, Compared With Typical Ore From Ophiolite Massive

Sulfide Deposits and Deep-Sea Manganese Nodules

Sulfides, Iat 21° N. & Sulfides Sulfide ore, Deep-seaJuan de Fuca Ridge Galapagos rift Cyprus manganese nodules

Typical grade, Typical grade, Typical grade, Typical grade,Element in percent in percent in percent in percent

Zinc . . . . . . . . 30 0.2 0.2 0.13Copper . . . . . 0.5 5.0 2.5 0.99Nickel . . . . . . — — — 1.22Cobalt . . . . . . — 0.02 — 0.23Molybdenum — 0.017 — 0.018Silver . . . . . . . 0.02 — — —

Lead . . . . . . . 0.30 — — —

Manganese. . — — — 28.8Germanium. . 0.01 — — .

SOURCE Adapted from V. E. McKelvey, “Subsea Mineral Resources,” U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin, 1669-A, 1966, p. 62


At the present time, too little is known about ma-rine polymetallic sulfide deposits to project theireconomic significance. Analysis of grab samples ofsulfides collected from several other spreading zonesindicate variable metal values, particularly from onezone to another. In general, all of the deposits sam-pled, except those on the Galapagos rift, have zincas their main metal in the form of sphalerite andwurtzite. The Galapagos deposits differ in that theycontain less than 1 percent zinc but have coppercontents of 5 to 10 percent, mainly in the form ofchalcopyrite. Weight percentage ranges of somemetals found in the sulfide deposits are given in ta-ble 2-5. Some of the higher analyses are from in-dividual grab samples composed almost entirely ofone or two metal sulfide minerals and analyze muchhigher in those metal values (e. g., a Juan de FucaRidge sample which is 50 percent zinc is primar-ily zinc sulfide). While this is impressive, it saysnothing about the extent of the deposit or its uni-formity. In any event, it is certain that any futuremining of hydrothermal deposits would recover anumber of metal coproducts.

Highly speculative figures assigning tonnagesand dollar values to ocean polymetallic sulfide oc-currences have begun to appear. Observers shouldbe extremely cautious in evaluating data related tothese deposits. The deposits have only been exam-ined from a scientific perspective related primar-ily to the process of hydrothermal circulation andits chemical and biological influence on the ocean.

No detailed economic evaluations of these depos-its or of potential recovery techniques have beenmade. Thus, estimates of the extent and volumeof the deposits are based on geologic hypotheses andlimited observational information. Even estimatesof the frequency of occurrence of submarine sul-fide deposits would be difficult to make at present.Less than 1 percent of the oceanic ridge system hasbeen explored in any detail.

A further note of caution is also in order. Indescribing the potential for polymetallic sulfide de-posits, several investigators have drawn parallelsor made comparisons to the costs of recovery andenvironmental impacts of ferromanganese nodulemining. There is also a parallel with regard to eco-nomic speculation. Early speculative estimates ofthe tonnages of ferromanganese nodules in the Pa-cific Ocean were given by John Mero in 1965 as1.5 trillion tons.

48 Even though this estimate wassubsequently expressed with caveats as to whatmight be potentially mineable (10 to 500 billiontons) ,49 the estimate of 1.5 trillion tons was widelyquoted and popularized, thus engendering a com-mon belief at the time that the deep seabed nod-ules were a virtually limitless untapped resource—awealth that could be developed to preferential ben-efit of less developed nations. The unlimited abun-

qeMero, Th e Mjneral Resources of th<’ Sc’a, P. 175.49J. L, Mere, “Potential Economic Value of Ocean-Floor Manganese

Nodule Deposits, ’ Ferromangancsc Deposits on the Ocean Floor,

DR. Horn (cd.), National Science Foundation, International Dec-ade of Ocean Exploration, Washington, DC, 1972, p. 202.


dance of seabed nodules was a basic premise onwhich the Third United Nations Conference on theLaw of the Sea was founded. Economic change andsubsequent research indicate both a more limitedmineable resource base and much lower projectedrates of return from nodule mining. However, asoften happens, positions that become establishedon the basis of one set of assumptions are difficultto amend when the assumptions change.

Creating expectations on the basis of highlyspeculative estimates of recoverable tonnages andvalues for hypothetical metal deposits serves little

Photo credit: U.S. Geological Survey

Hand sample of sulfide minerals recovered fromJuan de Fuca Ridge.

purpose. Avoiding the present temptation to ex-trapolate into enormous dollar values could avoidwhat may, upon further research, prove to be lessthan a spectacular economic resource in terms ofrecovery. This is not to say that the resource maynot be found, but simply that it is premature to de-fine its extent and estimate its economic value.

What then can be said about expectations for theU.S. EEZ? The Gorda Ridge is a relatively slowspreading active ridge crest. Until recently, mostsulfide deposits were found on the intermediate- tofast-spreading centers (greater than 2 inches peryear). This trend led some investigators to considerthe potential for sulfide mineralization at slow-spreading centers to be lower than at faster spread-ing centers. On the other hand, the convective heattransfer by hydrothermal circulation is on the sameorder of magnitude for both types of ridges. This


suggests that, if crustal material remains close tohydrothermal heat sources for a longer period oftime, it might become even more greatly enrichedthrough hydrothermal mineralization .50 In anyevent, a complete series of hydrothermal phases canbe expected at slow-spreading centers, ranging fromhigh-temperature sulfides to low-temperature ox-ides. The hydrothermal mineral phases includemassive, disseminated and stockwork sulfide depos-its and stratiform oxides, hydroxides, and silicates,

To account further for their differences, thedeeper seated heat sources at slow-spreading centerscan be inferred to favor development of leakyhydrothermal systems leading to precipitation ofthe sulfides beneath the seafloor. This inference,however, cannot be verified until the deposits aredrilled extensively.

Another view regarding the differences in poten-tial for mineralization between fast- versus slow-spreading ridge systems suggests that the extent ofhydrothermal activity and polymetallic sulfide depo-sition along oceanic ridge systems is more a func-tion of that particular segment’s episodic magmaticphase than the spreading rate of the ridge as awhole .51 According to this view, at any given timea ridge segment with a medium or slow averagespreading rate may show active hydrothermal vent-ing as extensive as that found along segments withfast spreading rates. Thus, massive polymetallic sul-fide deposits may be present along slow-spreadingridge segments, but they probably would be sepa-rated by greater time and distance intervals.

Another factor, particularly on the Gorda Ridge,is the amount of sediment cover. The 90-mile-long,

sediment-filled Escanaba Trough at the southernpart of the Gorda Ridge is similar to the GuaymasBasin in the Gulf of California, where hydrother-mal sulfide mineralization has been found. Theamount of sediment entering an active spreadingcenter is critical to the formation and preservationof the sulfide deposits. Too much material deliv-ered during mineralization will dilute the sulfideand reduce the economic value of the deposit. Onthe other hand, an insufficient sediment flux canresult in eventual oxidation and degradation of theunprotected deposit.

Sulfide deposits and active hydrothermal dis-charge zones have been found on the southern Juande Fuca Ridge beyond the 200-nautical-mile limitof the EEZ. The Juan de Fuca Ridge is a medium-rate spreading axis separating at the rate of 3 inchesper year. Zinc and silver-rich sulfides have beendredged from two vent sites that lie less than a mileapart. Photographic information combined with ge-ologic inference suggests a crude first-order esti-mate of 500,000 tons of zinc and silver sulfides ina 4-mile-long segment of the axial valley .52

Although marine polymetallic sulfide depositsmay someday prove to be a potential resource intheir own right, the current value of oceanfloor sul-fides lies in the scientific understanding of their for-mation processes as well as their assistance in thepossible discovery of analogous deposits on land(figure 2-8). Cyprus; Kidd Creek, Canada; and theKuroko District in Japan are all mining sites forpolymetallic sulfides, and all of these areas showthe presence of underlying oceanic crust. The keyto the past by studying the present is unravelingthe mechanisms by which this very important classof minerals and ores were formed.

50 Rena, “Hydrothermal Mineralization at Slow-Spreading Centers:Red Sea, Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean, ” p. 140.

s IA. M~ahoff, ‘ $ polymet~lic Sulfides-A Renewable Marine Re-source, Marine Mining: A New Beginning, Conference Proceed-ings, July 18-21, 1982, Hilo, HI, State of Hawaii, sponsored by De-partment of Planning and Economic Development, 1985, pp. 31-60.

ALASKA

In southeastern Alaska, the coast is mountainousand heavily glaciated. Glacial sediments covermuch of the shelf, which averages about 30 milesin width. The Gulf of Alaska has a wide shelf that

52R, A. Koski, W. R. Normark, and J. L. Morton, ‘‘Massive SUl -

fide Deposits on the Southern Juan de Fuca Ridge: Results of Inves-tigations in the USGS Study Area, 1980-83, Marine Mining, vol.

4, No. 2, 1985, pp. 147-164.

REGION

was mostly covered by glaciers during the Pleisto-cene. The eastern coast of the Gulf is less moun-tainous and lower than the steep western coast. Thesource rocks in the region include a wide range of


Figure 2-8.—Locations of Mineral Deposits Relative to Physiographic Features (vertical scale exaggerated)

Salt domes

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; A. McGregor and Millington Lockwood, “Mapping and Research In the Exclusive Economic Zone,” Departmentof the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey and Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

sedimentary, metamorphic, volcanic, and intrusivebodies.

The Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands con-sist of intrusive and volcanic rocks related to thesubduction zone along the Pacific side. The shelfnarrows westward from a width of nearly 125 milesto places where it is nearly nonexistent between theAleutian Islands. The Aleutians are primarily an-desitic volcanics while granitic intrusive are foundon the peninsula.

The Bering Sea shelf is very broad and gener-ally featureless except for a few islands, banks, anddepressions. A variety of sedimentary, igneous, andmetamorphic rocks are found in the region. In thesouth, of particular mineralogical interest, are theKuskokwim Mountains containing Precambrianschist and gneiss, younger intrusive rocks, anddunite. The Yukon River is the dominant drain-age system entering the Bering shelf, although sev-eral major rivers contribute sediments includingstreams on the Asian side, The region also has been


significantly affected by glaciation and major sealevel changes. Glacial sediment was derived fromSiberia as well as Alaska. Barrier islands are foundalong the northern side of the Seward Peninsula.

The major physiographic feature of the northcoast of Alaska is the gently sloping arctic coastalplain, which extends seaward to form a broad shelfunder the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. This areawas not glaciated during the Pleistocene, and onlyone major river, the Colville, drains most of theregion into the Beaufort Sea. The drainage areaincludes the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks of theBrooks Range and their associated local graniticintrusive and metamorphosed rocks.

Sand and Gravel

Approximately 74 percent of the continental shelfarea of the United States is off the coast of Alaska.Consequently, Alaskan offshore sand and gravelresources are very large. However, since these ma-terials are not generally located near centers of con-sumption, mining may not always be economicallyviable.

While glaciation has deposited large amounts ofsand and gravel on Alaska’s continental shelf, therecovery of economic amounts for construction ag-gregate is complicated by two factors:

1. much of the glacial debris is not well sorted,and

2. it is often buried under finer silt and mudwashed out after deglaciation.

Optimal areas for commercial sand and gravel de-posits would include outwash plains or submergedmoraines that have not been covered with recentsediment, or where waves and currents have win-nowed out finer material.

In general, much of the shelf of southeasternAlaska has a medium or coarse sand cover and isnot presently receiving depositional cover of finematerial. The Gulf of Alaska is currently receiv-ing glacial outwash of fine sediment in the easternpart and, in addition, contains extensive relict de-posits of sand and gravel. Economic deposits of sandhave been identified parallel to the shoreline westof Yakutat and west of Kayak Island. An exten-sive area of sand has been mapped in the lower

Cook Inlet, and gravel deposits are also presentthere (figure 2-9). Large quantities of sand andgravel are also found on the shelf of Kodiak Island.The Aleutian Islands are an unfavorable area forextensive sand and gravel deposits. Relict glacialsediments should be present on the narrow shelf,but the area is currently receiving little sediment.

Large amounts of fine sand lie in the southernBering Sea and off the Yukon River, but the north-ern areas may offer the greatest resource potentialfor construction aggregate. Extensive well-sortedsands and gravels are found at Cape Prince ofWales and northwest of the Seward Peninsula.However, distances to Alaskan market areas areconsiderable. Sand, silt, and mud are common onthe shelf in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea.Small, thin patches of gravel are also present, butavailable data are sparse. The best prospect ofgravel in the Beaufort Sea is a thick layer of Pleisto-cene gravel buried beneath 10 to 30 feet of over-burden east of the Colville River.

Overall sand and gravel resource estimates ofgreater than 200 billion cubic yards are projectedfor Alaska (table 2-4). In many areas, environ-mental concerns in addition to economic consider-ations would significantly influence development.

Precious Metals

Source rocks for sediments in southeasternAlaska are varied. Gold is found in the region andhas been mined from placer deposits. Platinum hasbeen mined from lode deposits on Prince of WalesIsland. Although few beach or marine placer de-posits are found in the area, the potential existssince favorable source rocks are present. However,glaciation has redistributed much of the sediment,and the shelf is receiving relatively little modernsediment.

Some gold has been recovered from beach placersin the eastern Gulf of Alaska; but, in general, theprospects for locating economic placers offshorewould not be great because of the large amount ofglacially derived fine-grained material entering thearea. In the western Gulf, the glaciation has re-moved much of the sediment from the coastal areaand deposited it offshore where subsequent rework-ing may have formed economically interesting


Figure 2-9.– Potential Hard Mineral Resources of the Alaskan EEZ

\

Gold and gravel have been mined from Alaskan waters and the potential exists for locating other offshore placer deposits.

SOURCES: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987; U.S. Department of the Interior, “SYmPosium Proceedings-A National Program for the Assessment and Develop-ment of the Mineral Resources of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 929, 1983.

placer deposits.53 Gold is found in the region and

has been mined from beaches on Kodiak Island andCook Inlet. Placer deposits may have formed onthe outer shelf but recovery may be difficult. LowerCook Inlet might be the best area of the Gulf toprospect.

SSH, E. Clifton and G. Luepke, Heavy-Minera/ placer Deposits ofthe Continence Margin of Alaska and the Pacific Coast States, in Ge-ology and Resouree Potential of the Continental Margin of WesternNorth America and A~”acent Ocean Baaisn-Beaufort Sea to Baja, Cali-fornia, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, ed.,D.W. Scholl, (in press).

The shelf along the Aleutian Islands is a rela-tively unfavorable prospective locale for finding eco-nomic placer deposits. Sediment supply is limited,and ore mineralization in the volcanic source rocksis rare. Lode and placer gold deposits have beenfound on the Alaska Peninsula, and gold placersmay be found off the south shore near former min-ing areas.

Platinum has been mined from alluvial placersnear Goodnews Bay on the Bering Sea. Anoma-lous concentrations of platinum are also found on


the coast south of the Salmon River and in sedi-ments in Chagvan Bay.

54 The possibility exists thatplatinum placers may be found on the shelf if gla-cially transported material has been concentratedby marine processes. Source rocks are thought tobe dunites in the coastal Kuskokwim Mountains,but lode deposits have not been found. Gold placersare also found along the coast of the Bering Seaand are especially important to the north nearNome. Lode gold and alluvial placers are commonalong the southern side of the Seward Peninsula,and tin placers have also been worked in the area.Gold has been found offshore in gravel on sub-merged beach ridges and dispersed in marine sandsand muds. Economic deposits may be found in thesubmerged beach ridges or in buried channels off-shore. The region around Nome has yielded about5 million ounces of gold, mainly from beach de-posits, and it is suggested that even larger amountsmay lie offshore.

55 How much of this, if any, maybe discovered in economically accessible depositsis uncertain, but the prospects are probably prettygood in the Nome area.

54R. M. Owen, ‘ ‘Geochemistry of Platinum-Enriched Sediments:Applications to Mineral Exploration, Marine Mining, vol. 1, No.4, 1978, pp. 259-282.

jjBeauchamp and Cmickshank, “Placer Minerals on the U.S. Con-tinental Shelves—Opportun ity for Development, p. 700.

HAWAII

Hawaii is a tectonically

Other Heavy Minerals

The eastern Gulf of Alaska is strongly influencedby the modern glaciers in the area. Fresh, glaciallyderived sediments, including large amounts of fine-grained material, are entering the area and beingsorted by marine processes. Heavy mineral suitesare likely to be fairly immature and burial is rapid.In general, the prospects for locating economicallyinteresting heavy mineral placers offshore in thisarea would not be great.

About 2,000 tons of tin have been produced fromplacers on the western part of the Seward Penin-sula. Tin in association with gold and other heavyminerals may occur in a prominent shoal which ex-tends over 22 miles north-northeast from CapePrince of Wales along the northwest portion of theSeward Peninsula. While seafloor deposits off theSeward Peninsula might be expected to containgold, cassiterite, and possibly tungsten minerals,data are lacking to evaluate the resource potential.

In general, the Chukchi and Beaufort seas maynot contain many economic placers. Source rocksare distant, and ice gouging tends to keep bottomsediments mixed.

REGION AND U.S. TRUST TERRITORIES

active, mid-ocean vol-canic chain with typically narrow and limited shelfareas. Sand and gravel resources are in short sup-ply. The narrow shelf areas in general do not pro-mote large accumulations of sand and gravel off-shore. One area of interest is the Penguin Bank,which is a drowned shore terrace about 30 milessoutheast of Honolulu (figure 2-10). The bank’s re-source potential is conservatively estimated at over350 million cubic yards of calcareous sands in about180 to 2,000 feet of water.56 This resource couldsupply Hawaii’s long-term needs for beach resto-ration and, to a lesser extent for construction. How-ever, high winds and strong currents are common

‘b~. Il. Murdaugh, ‘ ‘Preliminary Feasibility Assessment: OffshoreSand Mining, Penguin Bank, Hawaii, ” Program Feasibilit}rDocument—OCS Hard Minerals Leasing, app. 19, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, 1979, p. 14.

on the Penguin Bank. Total sand and gravel re-source estimates for Hawaii may be as high as 25billion cubic yards (table 2-4).

No metalliferous deposits are mined onshore inHawaii. Thus the prospects are somewhat poor forlocating economically attractive placer deposits onthe Hawaiian outer continental shelf. Minor phos-phorite deposits have been found in the Hawaiiarea, although phosphorite is found on seamountselsewhere in the Pacific.

The geology of the U.S. Trust Territories is gen-erally similar to Hawaii with the islands being ofvolcanic origin, often supporting reefs or limestonedeposits. Clastic debris of the same material ispresent and concentrated locally, but very little in-formation is available as to the nature and extentof any sand or gravel deposits. Other areas are rela-


Figure 2-10.– Potential Hard Mineral Resources of the Hawaiian EEZ

Cretaceusseamounts

\

Explanation

Known Likelyoccurrence occurrence

1

Mn-nodules o4 4

Co-crusts o5 5

0Massive sulfides 6 6

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Symposium Proceedings—A National Program for the Assessment and Develop-ment of the Mineral Resources of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 929, 1983.

tively free of sediment or are covered with fine sedi-ment consisting of red clay and/or calcareous ooze.The extent to which the United States has juris-diction over the EEZs of the various Trust Terri-tories (figure 2-1 1) is examined in appendix B.

Cobalt-Ferromanganese Crusts

Recently, high concentrations of cobalt have beenfound in ferromanganese crusts, nodules, and slabson the sides of several seamounts, ridges, and otherraised areas of ocean floor in the EEZ of the cen-tral Pacific region. The current interest in cobalt-enriched crusts follows an earlier period of consid-

erable activity during the 1960s and 1970s to de-termine the feasibility of mining manganese nod-ules from the deep ocean floor, While commercialprospects for deep seabed nodule mining havereceded because of unfavorable economics com-pounded by political uncertainties resulting fromthe Law of the Sea Convention, commercial inter-est in cobalt-ferromanganese crusts is emerging. Anumber of factors are contributing to this shift ofinterest, including seamount crusts that:

1. appear to be richer in metal content and morewidely distributed than previously recognized,

2. are at half the depth or less than their abyssalcounterparts,


Figure 2-11 .—Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crustson the Flanks of Seamounts and Volcanic Islands

Iron-manganese crusts enriched in cobalt occur on the flanksof volcanic islands and seamounts in geochemically favorableareas of the Pacific. Samples have been recovered forscientific purposes, but equipment for potential commercialevaluation and recovery has not been developed.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; Bonnie A. McGregor andTerry W. Of field, “The Exclusive Economic Zone: An Exciting NewFrontier, ” U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.

3.

4.

can be found within the U.S. EEZ whichcould provide a more stable investment cli-mate, andmay provide alternative sources of strategicmetals.


Ferromanganese crusts range from thin coatingsto thick pavements (up to 4 inches) on rock sur-faces that have remained free of sediment for mil-lions of years. The deposits are believed to formby precipitation of hydrated metal oxides from near-bottom seawater. The crusts form on submarinevolcanic and phosphorite rock surfaces or as nod-ules around nucleii of rock or crust fragments. Theydiffer from deep ocean nodules, which form on thesediment surface and derive much of their metalsfrom the interstitial water of the underlying sedi-ment. Several factors appear to influence the com-position, distribution, thickness, and growth rateof the crusts. These factors include metal concen-tration in the seawater, age and type of the sub-strate, bottom currents, depth of formation, lati-tude, presence of coral atolls, development of anoxygen-minimum zone, proximity to continents,and geologic setting.

The cobalt content varies with depth, with max-imum concentrations occurring between 3,300 and8,200 feet in the Pacific Ocean. Cobalt concentra-tions greater than 1 percent are generally restrictedto these depths. Platinum (up to 1.3 parts per mil-

lion) and nickel (to 1 percent) are also found asso-ciated with cobalt in significant concentrations inmany ferromanganese crust areas. Other metalsfound in lesser but significant amounts include lead,cerium, molybdenum, titanium, rhodium, zinc,and vanadium (table 2-6).

At least two periods of crust formation occur insome crusts. Radiometric dating and other analy-ses indicate that crusts have been forming for thelast 20 million years, with one major interruptionin ferromanganese oxide accretion during the lateMiocene, from 8 to 9 million years ago, as detectedin some samples. During this period of interrup-tion, phosphorite was deposited, separating theolder and younger crust materials. In some areas,there is evidence of even older periods of crust for-mation. Crust thickness is related to age; conse-quently, within limits, the age of the seafloor is animportant consideration in assessing the resourcepotential of an area. However, crust thickness doesnot ensure high cobalt and nickel concentrations.

The U.S. Geological Survey found thick crustswith moderate cobalt, manganese, and nickel con-centrations on Necker Ridge, which links the Mid-


Table 2-6.–Average Chemical Composition for Various Elements of Crusts From <8,200 Feet Water DepthFrom the EEZ of the United States and Other Pacific Nations (all data are in weight percent)

Areas n Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Pb Ti SiO2 P205 Fe/Mn

Hawaii and Midway (on axis) . . . . . . . .Hawaii and Midway (off axis) . . . . . . . .Johnston Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Palmyra Atoll-Kingman Reef . . . . . . . .Howland-Baker Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marshall Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Average central Pacific crusts . . . . . . .Northern Marianna Islands

(and Guam). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Western U.S. borderland . . . . . . . . . . . .Gulf of Alaska Seamounts . . . . . . . . . .Lau Basin (hydrothermal) . . . . . . . . . . .Tonga Ridge and Lau Basin

(hydrogenous) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .South China Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benin Island area (Japan) . . . . . . . . . . .French Polynesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Average for Pacific hydrogenous

crusts (all data from figures 2-8) . . .

2-38 24 16.0 0.91 0.45 0.054-15 21 18.0 0.60 0.37 0.10

12-40 22 17.0 0.70 0.43 0.117-8 27 16.0 1.1 0.51 0.063 29 18.0 0.99 0.63 0.08

5-13 26 14.0 0.94 0.56 0.1334-117 23 17.0 0.81 0.45 0.09

6-7 12 16.0 0.09 0.13 0.052-5 19 16.0 0.30 0,30 0.043-6 26 18.0 0.47 0.44 0.152 46 0.600.007 0.005 0.02

6-9 16 20.0 0.33 0.22 0.0514 13 13.0 0.13 0.34 0.041-1o 21 13.0 0.41 0.55 0.062-9 23 12.0 1.2 0.60 0.11

55-319 22 15.0 0.63 0.44 0.08

1.1 7.90.18 1.3 16.00.17 1.3 12.00.17 1.1 5.50.14 1.2 6.20.25 1.1 5.60.18 1.2 9.1

0.07 – –0.15 0.31 17.00.17 0.57 –0.006 0.005 –

0.16 1.0 –0.08 – 14.00.12 0.67 4.90.26 1.0 6.5

0.16 0,98 11.0

—1.01.21.91.70.901.3

——

0.870.05

1.0—

0.820.34

1.1

0.730.880.810,610.640.560.75

1.410.950.720.01

1.261.070.700.56

0.81n = Number of analyses for various elements.— = No data.

SOURCE: JR. Hein, L.A. Morgenson, D.A. Clague, and R.A. Koski, “Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crusts From the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States andNodules From the Oceanic Pacific,” D. Schoil, A. Grantz, and J. Vedder (eds.), Geology and Resource Potential of the Corrth’rerrta/ Margins of Western NorthAmerican and Adjacent Ocean Basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologkts, Memoir, in press.

Pacific Mountains and the Hawaiian Archipelago .57

Further, high cobalt values of 2.5 percent werefound in the top inch or so of crusts from the S.P.Lee Seamount at 8° N. latitude. These deposits oc-cur at depths coincident with a water mass that con-tains minimum concentrations of oxygen, leadingmost investigators to attribute part of this cobaltenrichment to low oxygen content in the seawaterenvironment. However, high cobalt values (greaterthan 1 percent) have also been found in the Mar-shall Islands, the western part of the HawaiianRidge province, and in French Polynesia, all ofwhich are outside the well-developed regionalequatorial oxygen-minimum zone but which ap-pear to be associated with locally developed oxygen-minimum zones. Oxygen-minimum zones are alsoassociated with low iron/manganese ratios. Figure2-12 illustrates the zone of cobalt enrichment infer-romanganese crusts on seamounts and volcanic is-lands. In general, while progress is being made tounderstand more fully the physical and geochemi-cal mechanisms of cobalt-manganese crust forma-

57J. R. Heine, et al., “Geological and Geochemical Data for Sea-mounts and Associated Ferromanganese Crusts In and Near the Ha-waiian, Johnston Island, and Palmyra Island Exclusive EconomicZones, ” U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 85-292, 1985,p. 129.

tion, the cobalt enrichment process is still uncer-tain. investigations to gain insight in this area willbe of considerable benefit in identifying future re-sources.

Surface texture, slope, and sediment cover alsomay influence crust growth rates. For example,sediment-free, current-swept regions appear to befavorable sites for crust formation.

Nodules are also found associated with cobalt-rich manganese crusts in some areas. These nod-ules are similar in composition to the crusts and,consequently, differ from their deep ocean coun-terparts. Another difference between crust-associated nodules and deep ocean nodules is thegreater predominance of nucleus material in thecrust-associated nodules. The cobalt-rich nodulesgenerally occur as extensive fields on the tops ofseamounts or within small valleys and depressions.While of much lesser extent overall than crustoccurrences, these nodules may prove more easilyrecoverable and, hence, possibly of nearer term eco-nomic interest.


The geologic considerations mentioned previ-ously are important determinants in assessing the


Figure 2-12.— EEZs of U.S. Insular and Trust Territories in the Pacific

Midway Island

Howland andBaker Islands

In addition to the waters off the fifty states, the Exclusive Economic Zone includes the waters contiguous to the insular territoriesand possessions of the United States. The United States has the authority to manage these economic zones to the extentconsistent with the legal relationships between the United States and these islands.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S7; D.A. and “Cobalt-Rich Crusts From the ExclusiveEconomic Zone of the United States and Nodules From the Oceanic Pacific,” in D. Scholl, A. and J. “Geology and Resource Potentialof the Continental Margin of Western North America and Adjacent Ocean Basins,” American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 43, in press.

resource potential of cobalt-rich ferromanganese cial concentrations of cobalt-rich crusts would becrusts. Using three primary assumptions based on confined to the slopes and plateau areas of sea-these factors, the East West Center in Hawaii mounts in water depths between 2,600 and 7,900produced a cobalt-rich ferromanganese crust re- feet. The second assumption was that commercialsource assessment for the Minerals Management concentrations would be most common in areasService .58 The first assumption was that commer- older than 25 million years, where both generations

of crust would be found, and less common in areas P. Humphrey, C .J, Johnson, et younger than 10 million years, where only thin-

Manganese Crust Potential, Study, MMS 85-0006, U.S. ner younger crust generation occurs. The third of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 1985, 35 pp. primary assumption was that commercial concen-


Table 2-7.—Resource Potential of Cobalt, Nickel,Manganese, and Platinum in Crusts of U.S. Trust

and Affiliated Territories

Resource Potential

Nickel PlatinumTerritory Cobalt ( t x 10°) Manganese (OZ X 1OE)

Belau/Palau . . . . . . . . 0.55 0.31 15.5 0.68Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.55 0.31 15.5 0.68Howland-Baker . . . . . 0.19 0.11 5.5 0.48Jarvis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 0.03 1.6 0.15Johnston Island . . . . 1.38 0.69 41.6 3.50Kingman—Palmyra . 3.38 1.52 76.1 5.70Marshall Islands. .. .10.55 5.49 281.3 21.50Micronesia. . . . . ....17.76 9.96 496.0 34.70Northern Mariana

Islands . . . . . . . . . . 3.60 1.97 100.2 7.70Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 0.01 0.8 0.04Wake . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.98 0.51 26.8 2.00NOTE: The above are estimates of in-place resources and as such do not indicate

either potential recoverability or mineable quantities.

SOURCE: Allen L. Clark, Peter Humphrey, Charles J. Johnson, and Dorothy K.Pak, Coba/t-Rich Manganese Crust Potential, OCS Study MMS 65-0006,1985, p. 20.

trations would be most common in areas of lowsediment cover that have been within the geographi-cally favorable equatorial zone for the majority oftheir geologic history.

The East-West Center’s procedure was to usedetailed bathymetric maps to determine permissiveareas for each EEZ of the U.S. Trust and AffiliatedTerritories in the Pacific. The permissive areas in-cluded all the seafloor between the depths of 2,600and 7,900 feet, making corrections for areas of sig-nificant slopes. Then, based on published data, themetal content and thickness of crust occurrencesfor each area were averaged. Crust thicknesses werealso assigned on the basis of ages of the seamounts,guyots, and island areas. Seamounts older than 40million years were assigned a thickness of 1 inch.Seamounts younger than 10 million years were as-signed a thickness of one-half inch, and seamountsyounger than 2 to 5 million years were not includedin the resource calculations. These data are sum-marized in table 2-7.

According to table 2-7, the five territories of high-est resource potential would be the Federated Statesof Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Commonwealthof the Northern Mariana Islands, Kingman-Palmyra Islands, and Johnston Island. Further ge-ologic inference suggests that the resource poten-tial of the Federated States of Micronesia and theCommonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

could be reduced because of uncertainties in ageand degree of sediment cover. Thus, according totheir more qualitative assessment, the largest re-source potential for cobalt crusts would likely bein the Marshall Islands, followed by the Kingman-Palmyra, Johnston, and Wake Islands (figure 2-13). The territories of lesser resource potentialwould include, in decreasing order, the FederatedStates of Micronesia, Commonwealth of the North-ern Mariana Islands (figure 2-14), Belau-Palau,Guam, Howland-Baker, Jarvis, and Samoa.59

Another assessment of crust resource potentialusing grade and permissive area calculations withgeologic and oceanographic criteria factored in isgiven in table 2-8.60 This assessment is also a qual-itative ranking without attempting to quantify ton-nages. In this regard, other factors that would haveto be considered to assess the economic potentialof any particular area include: nearness to port fa-cilities and processing plants, and the cost of trans-portation. In addition, factors highly critical to theeconomics of a potential crust mining operationwould be the degree to which the crust can be sep-arated from its substrate and the percentage of the

‘gIbid., p. 21.‘OJ. R. Hein, L.A. Morgenson, D.A. Glague, and R.A. Koski,

‘(Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crusts From the Exclusive EconomicZone of the United States and Nodules From the Oceanic Pacific,D. Scholl, A. Grantz, and J, Vedder (eds. ), Geology and ResourcePotent]af of the Continental Margins of Western North America andAdjacent Ocean Basins, American Association of Petroleum Geolo-gists, Memoir (in press), 1986.

Table 2-8.—Estimated Resource Potential of CrustsWithin the EEZ of Hawaii and U.S. Trust

and Affiliated Territories

RelativePacific area banking Potential

Marshall Islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 HighMicronesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 HighJohnston Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 HighKingman-Palmyra. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 High

Hawaii-Midway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 MediumWake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 MediumHowland-Baker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Medium

Northern Mariana Islands. . . . . . 8 LowJarvis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 LowSamoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 LowBelau/Palau. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LowGuam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 LowSOURCE: Modified from J.R. Hein, F.T. Manheim, and W.C. Schwab, Coba/t-Rich

Ferrornangwrese Crusts from the Centra/ Pac/flc, OTC 5234, OffshoreTechnology Conference, May 1966, pp. 119126,


Figure 2-13.– Potential Hard Mineral Resources of U.S. Insular Territories South of Hawaii

0 .0.

●

●

✎

Se

●●

Seamounts

Seamounts

Co-crusts o5

0Massive sulfides 6

5

60 500 1000 Miles

J i 1 J

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Symposium Proceedings—A Program tne Assessment ana

ment of the Mineral Resources of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 929, 1983.

area that could not be mined because of roughnessof small-scale topography. When asked to place thestage of knowledge of the economic potential of co-balt crusts on the time-scale experienced in the in-vestigations of manganese nodules, one leadingresearcher chose 1963.61

M. Broadus, Seabed Mining, report to the Office of Technol-ogy Assessment, U.S. Congress, Feb. 14, 1984, p. 24,

Manganese Nodules

Ferromanganese nodules are found at most waterdepths from the continental shelf to the abyssalplain. Since the formation of nodules is limited toareas of low sedimentation, they are most commonon the abyssal plain. Nodules on the abyssal plainare enriched in copper and nickel and, until re-cently, have been regarded as candidates for com-mercial recovery. Nodules found on topographichighs in the Pacific are enriched in cobalt and werementioned in the previous section.


Figure 2-14.– Potential Hard Mineral Resources of U.S. Insular Territories West of Hawaii

Northern Mariana Islands Wake Island

Co-crusts o5 5 1 I I

Massive sulfides o6 6

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S7; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Symposium Proceedings-A National Program for the Assessment and Develop-ment of the Mineral Resources of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 929, 19S3.

The prime area considered for commercial re- per square yard to be commercially interesting. Be-covery of nodules in the Pacific lies in international cause of uncertainties brought about by the Unitedwaters between the Clarion and Clipperton frac- Nations Law of the Sea Convention in regard toture zones in the mid-Pacific ocean. However, sev- mining in international waters, and because of theeral other smaller areas may contain suitable mine low price of copper on the world market, the re-sites, for example, southwest of Hawaii. A mine covery of nodules from the Clarion-Clipperton re-site should have an average grade of about 2.25 per- gion is not attractive at this time.cent copper plus nickel with 20 pounds of nodules

c w m

m

m g m

m bee d

2 d

m d d g

c R A m Ex

~:"£.~,,, " , ~.

,_ ..... " ~

d dg d m p mm

p g m rf

Foo

m P ryw d

b

o

78 • Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Fr

Photo credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Manganese nodules on the seafloor. Ferromanganese nodules have been studied extensively as a potential source of copper, nickel, cobalt, and manganese. Prototype mining systems have successfully recovered several tons of nodules from sites such as this, but fullscale mining systems have not been built and tested.

Current market conditions do not encourage further commercial development.

Chapter 3

Minerals Supply, Demand,and Future Trends

CONTENTS

PageIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Trends in Minerals Consumption . . . . . . . . . 81Commodity Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83State of the Mining Industry . . . . ........ 85Ferroalloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86National Defense Stockpile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Substitution, Conservation, and Recycling . 88Major Seabed Mineral Commodities . . . . . . 89

Cobalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Manganese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Nickel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................100Platinum-Group Metals . . . . . . . . . . .. ....102Titanium (Ilmenite and Rutile) . ........104Phosphate Rock (Phosphorite) . .........107Sand and Gravel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111G a r n e t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2Monazite . . . . . . . . . . . . ................112Z i r c o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2

BoxBox Page3-A. Government Sources of Information

and Units of Measure Used in ThisReport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

FiguresFigure No. Page3-1.

3-2.

3-3.3-4.

3-5.

Actual and Projected Consumption ofSelected Minerals in the Market-Economy Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Price Trends for Selected SeabedMineral Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Cobalt Prices, 1920-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85U.S. Ferrochromium and ChromateOre Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Percentage of Manganese ImportedInto the United States asFerromanganese, 1973-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure No. Page3-6.

3-7.

Table3-1

3-2.

3-3.

3-4.

3-5.

3-6.

3-7.

3-8.

3-9<

3-10(

3-11.

3-12.

3-13.

3-14.

3-15.

3-16.

Vorld Titanium PigmentManufacturing Capacity . ............105Major World Exporters of PhosphateRock Since 1975, With Projections to995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108

TablesNo. PageMajor U.S. Strategic MaterialsContained in the National DefenseStockpile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Forecast of U.S. and World CobaltDemand in 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901986 National Defense ChromiumStockpile Goals and Inventories . . . . . . 91Forecasts for U.S. ChromiumDemand in 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Status of Manganese in the NationalDefense Stockpile-1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Forecast for U.S. and WorldManganese Demand in 2000 . . . . . . . . 96Forecast of U.S. and World NickelDemand in 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97U.S. and World Copper Demandin 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Forecast of U.S. and World ZincDemand in 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100Platinum-Group Metals in theNational Defense Stockpile . . . . . . . . ..102Forecast of Demand for Platinum-Group Metals in 2000 . .............103U.S. Titanium Reserves and ReserveB a s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5Forecast for U.S. Titanium Demandin 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...106World and U.S. Phosphate RockProduction . . . . . . . .................108World Phosphate Rock Reserves andReserve Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109Forecasts of U.S. and WorldPhosphate Rock Demand in 2000. ...110

Chapter 3

Minerals Supply, Demand, and Future Trends

INTRODUCTION

Commodities, materials, and mineral concen-trates—the stuff made from minerals-are activelytraded in international markets. An analysis of do-mestic demand, supply, and prices of minerals andtheir products must also consider future global sup-ply and demand, and international competition.This is important to all mining and minerals ven-tures, but particularly so for seabed minerals, whichmust not only compete with domestically producedland-based minerals, but which must also matchthe prices of foreign onshore and offshore pro-ducers. 1

The commercial potential of most seabed min-erals from the EEZ is uncertain. Several factorsmake analysis of their potential difficult, if not im-possible:

●

●

●

●

●

First, very little is known about the extent andgrade of the mineral occurrences that havebeen identified thus far in the EEZ.Second, without actual experience or pilotoperations, the mining costs and the unfore-seen operational problems that affect costs can-not be assessed accurately.Third, unpredictable performance of domes-tic and global economies adds uncertainty toforecasts of minerals demand.Fourth, changing technologies can cause un-foreseen shifts in demand for minerals and ma-terials.Fifth, past experience indicates that methodsfor projecting or forecasting minerals demand

‘J. Broadus, “Seabed Materials, ” Science, vol. 235, Feb. 20, 1987,p. 835.

fall short of perfection and are sometimes in-correct or misleading.

Mineral commodities demand is a function of de-mand for construction, capital equipment, trans-portation, agricultural products, and durable con-sumer goods. These markets are tied directly orindirectly to general economic trends and are nota-bly unstable. With economic growth as the “com-mon denominator’ for determining materials con-sumption and hence minerals demand, and withrecognition of the shortcomings in predicting globaleconomic changes, any hope for reasonably ac-curate forecasts evaporates.

It is probably unwise to even attempt to specu-late on the future commercial viability of seabedmining, but few can resist the temptation to do so.The case of deep seabed manganese nodule min-ing offers a graphic example of how external in-ternational and domestic political events and eco-nomic factors can affect the business climate andeconomic feasibility of offshore mining ventures.After considerable investment in resource assess-ments, development and testing of prototype min-ing systems, and detailed economic and financialanalyses, the downturn of the minerals marketsfrom the late 1970s through the 1980s continuesto keep the mining of seabed manganese nodulesout of economic reach, although many of the in-ternational legal uncertainties once facing the in-dustry have been eliminated through reciprocalagreements among the ocean mining nations. Asa consequence, several deep seabed mining ven-tures have either shrunk their operations or aban-doned their efforts altogether.

TRENDS IN MINERALS CONSUMPTION

Minerals consumption for a product is deter- consumed in the economy (product composition),mined by the number of units manufactured and because each consumes different materials as wellthe quantity of metal or material used in each unit. as different amounts of those materials. Finally,Total demand is influenced by the mix of goods minerals demand is closely related to macroeconomic

81


activity, consumer preference, changing technol-ogies, prices, and other unpredictable factors (seebox 3-A).

Long-term demand is difficult to forecast. Sim-ple projections of consumption trends may be mis-leading (figure 3-1).2 From the late 1970s through

‘J. “Changing Trends in Metal Demand and the Declineof Mining and Mineral Processing in Nonh America, paper pre-sented at Colorado School of Mines Conference on Public Policy andthe Competitiveness of U.S. and Canadian Metals Production,Golden, CO, Jan. 27-30, 1987.

Figure 3-1 .—Actual and Projected Consumption ofSelected Minerals in the Market-Economy Countries

(1950-85)

Copper

Projected

Changes in the world economy since 1973 have made itdifficult to forecast the long-term consumption of metals

by the Market-Economy Countries.

SOURCE: “Changing Trenda in Metal Demand and the of Min-ing and Mineral Processing in North America,” paper presented at aconference on public Policy and the Competitiveness of U.S. and Cana-dian Metals Production, Colorado School of Mines, Jan. 27-30, 1967(modified).

Ch. 3—Minerals Supply, Demand, and Future Trends 83

middle 1980s, unforeseen changes in the worldeconomy significantly altered consumption; thesechanges were partially caused by economic pres-sures resulting from substantial increases in energyprices, coupled with technological advancements(including substitution), changes in consumer atti-tude, imports of finished products rather than rawmaterials, and growth in the service sector of theU.S. economy.

These shifts in minerals demand are reflected inboth the intensity of use and in consumption.3 Of

the major industrial metals derived from mineralsknown to occur in the U.S. EEZ, only two—plati-num and titanium—show growth in domestic con-sumption between 1972 and 1982. Whether thelong-term trends in use intensity and consumptionwill continue, stabilize, or recover depends on manycomplex factors and unpredictable events that con-found even the most sophisticated analyses. How-ever, there are indications that trends in reducedintensity of use and consumption for some metals,e.g., nickel, have stabilized since 1982.

3’ Intensity of use, as used in this report, is the quantity of metalconsumed per constant dollar output.

For most minerals,and demand resulting

COMMODITY PRICES

the normal forces of supply demand are notably volatile (figure 3-2). While allfrom macroeconomic trends minerals are subject to some oscillations in market

determine the market price.4 Mineral prices and prices due to normal economic events, some thatare produced by only a few sources (where there

‘Broadus, “Seabed Materials, ” p. 857. is a relatively low level of trade, e.g. , cobalt) and

Photo credit: Jenifer Robison

Considerable onshore mining capacity remains idle as a result of depressed mineral prices, foreign competition, andreduced demand. Idle capacity will likely be brought back into production to satisfy increased future consumption before

new mining operations are begun either onshore or offshore.


Figure 3-2.– Price Trends for SelectedSeabed Mineral Commodities

Prices of several commodities that are derived from minerals known to occur on the seabed within the U.S. EEZ can changeabruptly in world markets.

SOURCE: “Seabed Materials,” vol. 235, Feb. 20, 19S7, p. S57 (modified and abbreviated).

Ch. 3—Minerals Supply, Demand, and Future Trends ● 85

those that are targets of speculators (e. g., the pre-cious metals) undergo drastic and often unpredict-able swings in price. Although attempts at formingmineral cartels similar to Organization of Petro-leum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in order tostabilize prices have generally failed eventually,e.g., attempts by Morocco to control the produc-tion and price of phosphate rock and the Interna-tional Tin Council’s effort to stabilize tin prices,they nevertheless can trigger serious price disrup-tions.5 Speculative surges, such as that encounteredby silver in 1979-80, also can have tremendous im-pacts on price structure.

In addition, unforeseen supply interruptions orthe fear of such interruptions can drive the priceof commodities up. The short-lived guerrilla inva-sion of the Zairian province of Shaba in 1977 and1978, had a psychological effect on cobalt con-sumers that sent prices up from $6.40 per poundin February 1977 to $25 per pound in February1979, although the invasion caused little interrup-tion in production and Zairian cobalt productionactually increased in 1978 (figure 3-3).6 Threats ofa possible cutoff of the supply of platinum-groupmetals from the Republic of South Africa, result-ing from U.S. sanctions against apartheid, recentlycaused similar increases in the market price ofplatinum.

5S. Strauss, Trouble in the Third Kingdom (London, U. K.: M in-ing Journal Books, Ltd., 1986), p. 116; see also, K. Hendrixson andJ. Schanz, Jr., International Mineraf Market Control and Stabiliza-tion: Historical Perspectives, 86-601 S (Washington, DC: Congres-sional Research Service, 1986).

bOfiice of Technology Assessment, Strategic Materials: Technol-ogies to Reduce U.S. Import Vulnerability, OTA-ITE-248 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Congress, 1985), pp. 97-104; see also, W. Kirk“A Third Pricing Phase: Stability?” American Metaf Market, Aug.23, 1985, pp. 9-12.

Figure 3-3.— Cobalt Prices, 1920-85

—1920 1930 1940 1950 1980 1970 1980 1990

YearCobalt is a good example of how mineral commodity pricescan be affected by the fear of a supply interruption. Althoughsupplies of cobalt were only briefly interrupted during theShaba guerrilla uprising in Zaire, the psychological impact ontraders caused cobalt prices to skyrocket from 1978 to 1979.

SOURCE: F. Manheim, “Marine Cobalt Resources,” Science, vol. 232, May 2, 19S6.

Such commodity price fluctuations pose signifi-cant economic uncertainties for investors in newmineral developments, including seabed mining.Macroeconomic cycles coupled with macroeconomicdisruptions within the minerals sector make plan-ning difficult and the business future uncertain.

Nonmetallic minerals, while not completely im-mune from downturns in the business cycle, as awhole have fared better than metals in recent years.The prices of phosphate rock, sulfur, boron, diato-mite, and salt have all increased at a higher ratethan has inflation since 1973, whereas only theprices of tin (temporarily) and certain precious me-tals have matched that performance among the non-ferrous metals.7 However, all mineral prices fluc-tuated greatly during that period.

‘Strauss, Trouble in the Third Kingdom, p. 140.

STATE OF THE MINING INDUSTRY

The downturn in the world minerals industryinto the 1980s had a combination of causes:

● First, there has been a long-term (but only re-cently recognized) trend toward less metal-in-tensive goods.

● Second, growth has slackened in per capitaconsumption of consumer goods and capitalexpenditures.

● Third, developing countries’ economies havenot expanded to the point that they have be-come significant consumers, while at the sametime some of these countries have become low-cost mineral producers competing with tradi-tional producers in the industrialized countries.

● Fourth, petroleum companies diversified byinvesting in minerals projects that turned out


to be poor investments due to the 1982-83recession.8

As a result, metal prices have remained quite lowduring the 1980s and will probably remain so un-til demand absorbs the unused mineral productioncapacity. The World Bank Index of metal and min-eral prices indicates that the constant-dollar valueof mineral prices in the 1981 to 1985 period was19 percent below the value from 1975 to 1979 and37 percent lower than the years 1965 through 1974.9

To survive these prices, the domestic industry hasundergone a significant shakedown and restructur-ing, coupled with cuts in operations to improve effi-ciency. While the surviving firms may emerge asstronger competitors, their ability and willingnessto invest in future risky ventures such as seabedmining are likely to be limited.

Recent increases in the number of government-owned or state-controlled foreign mining ventureshave added a new twist to the structure of the world

‘Tilton, “Changing Trends in Metal Demand. ”‘World Bank, Commodities Division, ‘‘Primary Commodity Price

Forecasts, Aug. 18, 1986.

mining industry. The domestic industry tends toblame state-owned producers for ignoring marketforces and maintaining production despite lowprices or supply surpluses. There is some evidencethat state-owned operators may continue produc-tion in order to maintain employment or generatemuch-needed hard currency. 10

Until recently, production costs in the UnitedStates have been well above the world average.Overvalued currency (high value of the dollar) dur-ing 1981-86 also may have contributed to makingNorth American production less competitive. Thesefactors may have masked any effect that stateownership might have played in distorting the worldmarket. 11 Nevertheless, domestic competition withstate-owned mining ventures is a trend that willlikely continue in the future.

IOM. Radetzki, “The Role of State Owned Enterprises in the In-ternational Metal Mining Industry, paper presented at Conferenceon Public Policy and the Competitiveness of U.S. and Canadian MetalsProduction, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, Jan. 27-30, 1987,p. 15.

“J. Ellis, “Copper,” The Competitiveness of American Metal Min-ing and Processing (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service,1986). p. 17.

FERROALLOYS

Manganese, chromium, silicon, and a numberof other alloying elements are used to impart spe-cific properties to steel. Manganese is also used toreduce the sulfur content of steel and silicon is adeoxidizer. Most elements are added to molten steelin the form of ferroalloys, although some are ad-ded in elemental form or as oxides. Ferroalloys areintermediate products made of iron enriched withthe alloying element. Ferromanganese, ferrochro-mium, and ferrosilicon are the major ferroalloysused in the United States. There are no domesticreserves of either manganese or chromium; there-fore the United States must import all of these al-loying elements.

U.S. ferroalloy producers have lost domesticmarkets to cheaper foreign sources. Higher domes-tic operating costs related to electric power rates,labor rates, tax rates, transportation costs, and reg-ulatory costs have given foreign producers a com-petitive edge.

As a result, the form of U.S. chromium importshas changed during the last decade. Since 1981,the United States has imported more finished fer-roalloys and metals than chromite (figure 3-4). Do-mestic production of chromium ferroalloys has de-creased steadily since 1973, when 260,000 tons(chromium content) of ferroalloy was produced, to59,000 tons in 1984 (largely conversion of stock-piled chromite).12 Foreign producers now supplyU.S. markets with about 90 percent of the high-carbon ferrochromium consumed and all of the oreused domestically for the manufacture of chemi-cals and refractories.

This shift from imports of ores and concentratesto imports of ferrochromium and finished metalscould have important strategic implications. Since1975, an increasing number of ferrochromium

1 ZR, Brown and G. Murphy, ‘‘ Ferroalloys, Mineral Facts andProbk*ms-~985 Edition, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bu-reau c,f Mines, 1986), p. 269.

Ch. 3—Minerals Supply, Demand, and Future Trends ● 8 7

plants have been built close to sources of chromiteores in distant countries, such as the Republic ofSouth Africa, Zimbabwe, Greece, the Philippines,Turkey, India, and Albania. This trend in themovement of ferrochromium supply is expected tocontinue. Decline of U.S. ferroalloy production ca-pacity in relation to demand will likely make theUnited States nearly totally dependent on foreignprocessing capacity in the future.

Domestic demand for ferroalloys is related to steelproduction. Domestic steel capacity fell by almost50 million tons (30 percent) between 1977 and 1987.Iron castings capacity also has shrunk considera-bly in recent years. In 1986, the United States im-ported about 21 percent of its iron and steel. Thedecline in domestic steel production has also re-duced the domestic demand for ferroalloys. Withthe decreases in both U.S. ferroalloy productionand iron and steel production, demand for chro-mium and manganese ores for domestic produc-tion of ferroalloys is likely to continue to declineproportionately.

Figure 3-4.—U.S. Ferrochromium andChromite Ore Imports

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

In 1939, Congress authorized stockpiling of crit-ical materials for national security. World War 11precluded the accumulation of stocks, and it wasnot until the Korean War that materials stockpil-ing began in earnest. Since that time, U.S. stock-pile policy has been erratic and subject to periodic,lively debate. Past presidents have supported stock-piling critical materials for times of emergency, butsome have favored disposal of some of the stock-piled items for fiscal or budgetary reasons. Thequestion of how much of each commodity shouldbe retained in the stockpile remains a hotly debatedissue.

Stockpile goals are currently based on the mate-rials needed for critical uses for a 3-year period thatare vulnerable to supply interruption. Some ob-servers conclude that an increase in one unit of do-mestic production capacity from domestic reservescould offset three units of stockpiled materials. Thisview argues in favor of promoting domestic pro-duction of stockpiled materials where feasible so asto reduce the need for emergency stockpiling. Sev-

eral seabed minerals, including cobalt, manganese,and chromium could be considered as candidatesfor special treatment if government policies wereto shift away from emergency stockpiling towardeconomic support of marginal resource develop-ment for strategic and critical purposes. To be con-sidered a secure source of supply, however, ma-rine mineral operations offshore would have to beprotected from saboteurs or hostile forces.

The stockpiling program was overhauled in 1979to create a National Defense Stockpile with a Trans-action Fund that dedicates revenue received by theFederal Government from the sale of stockpile ex-cesses to the purchase of materials short of stock-pile goals.

13 In 1986, the stockpile inventory wasvalued at approximately $10 billion. If the stock-pile met current goals, it would have a value ofabout $16.6 billion. 14 A number of materials de-

ItStrategic and Critical Materi~s Stock Piling Act of 1979, PublicLaw 96-41, 50 U.S. C. 98 et seq.

1+Feder~ Emergency Management Agency, Stockpile Report to theCongress: October J985-March 1986, FEMA 36, 1986, p, 61,


rived from minerals known to occur within the U.S.EEZ are included in the stockpile: r-utile, platinum-group metals, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel,cobalt, zinc, chromium, copper, and titanium (ta-ble 3-l).

The stockpile program can affect minerals mar-kets when there are large purchases to meet stock-pile goals or sales of materials in excess of goals,although the authorizing legislation prohibits trans-actions that would disrupt normal marketing prac-tices. Stockpile policies have on occasion openedadditional markets for certain minerals, while atother times sales from the stockpile have signifi-cantly depressed some commodity prices. The mereexistence of stockpile inventories can also have apsychological effect on potential mineral produc-ers’ actions.

Table 3-1.—Major U.S. Strategic MaterialsContained in the National Defense Stockpile

Most vulnerable Vulnerable Less vulnerable

Chromium Bauxite/alumina CopperCobalt Beryllium LeadManganese Columbium NickelPlatinum-group Diamond (industrial) Silver

Graphite (natural) ZincRutileTantalumTinTitanium spongeVanadium

SOURCE: Adapted from Federal Emergency Management Agency, Sfockpi/eReport to the Congress (Washington, DC: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, 1986), pp. 30-31.

SUBSTITUTION, CONSERVATION, AND RECYCLING

Changes in production technology can substan-tially affect minerals and materials use. Changesin use are generally made in response to economicincentives, although environmental regulations alsohave been instrumental in promoting some conser-vation and recycling. Cheaper materials or mate-rials that perform better can replace their compet-itors by substitution. Similarly, there is significantmotivation to reduce the amount of material usedin a production process or to use it more efficiently.Finally, if the material is valuable enough to offsetthe cost of collecting, separating, and reclaimingscrap, there is an incentive to recycle the materialthrough secondary processing. Each of these op-tions can reduce the demand for primary mineralsproduction.

Materials substitution is a continuing, evolution-ary process where one material displaces anotherin a specific use. Examples of substitution abound.Steel has replaced wood for floor joists, studs, andsiding in many construction applications. Plasticsare replacing wood as furniture parts and finishes,many metals in non-stress applications, and steelin automobile bodies. Ceramics show promise fordisplacing carbide steels in some cutting tools andsome internal combustion engine components.Glass fiber optics have replaced copper wire in some

telecommunications applications. At a more ele-mental level, there are other examples: manganesecan partially substitute for nickel and chromiumin some stainless steels; the increased use of nickel-based superalloys have reduced the quantity of co-balt used in aircraft engines; and, for some elec-tronic applications, gold can replace platinum.

Conservation technologies can reduce theamount of metal used in the manufacturing proc-ess. Near-net-shaping, in which metals are cast intoshapes that correspond closely to the final shape ofthe object, can reduce materials waste in some in-stances. Conventional processing generally involvesconsiderable machining of billets, bars, or otherstandard precast shapes and generates substantialamounts of mill cuttings and machine scrap. Insome cases, the ratio between purchased metal andused metal may be as high as 10 to 1.15 While muchof this ‘‘new scrap ‘‘ is reclaimed, some is contami-nated and is unusable for high-performance appli-cations like aircraft engines.

Improvements in production processes can alsoreduce metals needs. The use of manganese todesulfurize steel has been reduced with the intro-

IJOfflce of TeChnOIO~ Assessment, Strategic Materials: Technol-ogies to Reduce U.S. Import Vulnerability, p. 24.

Ch. 3—Minerals Supply, Demand, and Future Trends ● 8 9

duction of external desulfurization processes. Con-tinuous casting technology can reduce the amountof scrap produced in steel manufacturing. Emerg-ing technologies, for example, surface treatmenttechnologies (e. g., ion-implantation) and powderedmetal technologies, may also reduce the use of somemetals for high-performance applications in thefuture.

For several metals, ‘ ‘obsolete scrap’ (’‘oldscrap’ could play an even more important rolein reducing the need for virgin materials if economicconditions change and institutional problems are

overcome. Recycling and secondary production hasbecome a stable sector for several of the minerals(e. g., copper, lead, zinc, nickel, silver, iron, steel,and to a lesser extent platinum, chromium, and co-balt). Very little manganese is recycled. Economicfactors largely determine the recyclability of ma-terials, factors such as price; cost of collecting, iden-tifying, sorting, and separating scrap; and the costof cleaning, processing, and refining the metal. Itis technologically possible to recover significantlymore chromium, cobalt, and platinum from scrapshould the need arise and economics permit.

MAJOR SEABED MINERAL COMMODITIES

Cobalt

Properties and Uses

Cobalt imparts heat resistance, high strength,wear resistance, and magnetic properties to mate-rials. In 1986, about 36 percent of the cobalt con-sumed in the United States was for aircraft enginesand industrial gas turbines (superalloys containfrom 1 to 65 percent cobalt); 14 percent was formagnetic alloys for permanent magnets; 13 percentfor driers in paints and lacquers; 11 percent forcatalysts; and 26 percent for various other appli-cations. These other applications included using ofcobalt to cement carbide abrasives in the manu-facture of cutting tools and mining and drillingequipment; to bind steel to rubber in the manu-facture of radial tires; as a hydrators, desulfurizer,and oxidizer and as a synthesizer of hydrocarbons;in nutritional supplements; and in dental and med-ical supplies.

There are currently no acceptable substitutes orreplacements for cobalt in high-temperature appli-cations, although alternatives have been proposed.However, the possible substitutes are also strate-gic and critical metals such as nickel. While cer-amics have potential for high-temperature appli-cations, it will be some time in the future beforethey can be used extensively in jet engines or in-dustrial gas turbines. Use of some cobalt-rich al-loys could be reduced by substitution of ceramicor ceramic-coated automobile turbochargers, andthere are possible replacements for cobalt inmagnets.

National Importance

The United States imported 92 percent of the co-balt it consumed in 1986.16 Cobalt is consideredto be a potentially vulnerable strategic material (ta-ble 3-1) and is a priority item in the National De-fense Stockpile. The stockpile goal for cobalt is42,700 tons, and the inventory is currently 26,590tons of contained cobalt, or about 62 percent of thegoal. Much of the stockpiled cobalt is of insufficientgrade to be used for the production of high-perform-ance metals, although it could be used to produceimportant chemical products and for magnets. 17

No cobalt has been mined in the United Statessince 1971. Zaire supplied 40 percent of U.S. co-balt needs from 1982 to 1985, Zambia 16 percent,Canada 13 percent, Norway 6 percent, and vari-ous other sources 25 percent. 18 In addition, about600 tons of cobalt was recycled from purchasedscrap in 1986, or approximately 8 percent of appar-ent consumption. There has been no domestic co-balt refinery capacity since the AMAX NickelRefining Company closed its nickel-cobalt refin-ery at Port Nickel, Louisiana, (capacity of 2 mil-lion pounds of cobalt per year), although two firmsuse the facility to produce extra-fine cobalt pow-der from virgin and recycled material.

“~’. Kirk, ‘ ‘Cobalt, ” .bfineraf Commodit,v Summaries-1987(Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 38,

I TAmerican Smiety for Met~s, Qualit}, Assessment of i%’afional De-fense Stockpile Cobalt In\’entory (Metals Park, OH: American Soci-ety for Metals, 1983), p. 40.

“Kirk, ‘ ‘Cobalt, ’ ,$ finera) Commodi[j Summaries—1987, p. 38.

72-672 0 - 87 - 4


With 56 percent of cobalt imports originatingfrom Zaire and Zambia, which together producealmost 70 percent of the world’s supply of cobalt,the U.S. supply of cobalt is concentrated in devel-oping countries with uncertain political futures. Forexample, the invasion of Shaba Province in Zairein 1977 and 1978 by anti-government guerrillascaused some concern about the impact of politicalinstability on cobalt supply. Abrupt increases inmarket prices followed, driven more by market op-portunists and fear of the consequences than fromdirect interdiction of cobalt supply. Mining andprocessing facilities were only briefly closed and theimpact on Zaire’s production capacity was negli-gible. 19

Domestic Resources and Reserves

Cobalt is recovered as a byproduct of nickel, cop-per, and, to a much lesser extent, platinum. Eco-nomic deposits typically contain concentrations ofbetween 0.1 and 2 percent cobalt. The U.S. reservebase is large (950,000 tons of contained cobalt), butthere are currently no domestic reserves of cobalt.Domestic cobalt resources are estimated at about1.4 million tons (contained cobalt) .20

The economics of cobalt recovery are linked morewith the market price of the associated major me-tals (copper and nickel) than with the price of co-balt. It is necessary, therefore, that the major me-tals be economically recoverable to permit therecovery of cobalt as a byproduct. As a result, theprice sensitivity of cobalt production is difficult toforecast. Depressed prices for the base metals re-duce the economic feasibility of recovering cobalt.

Domestic land-based cobalt-bearing deposits arelikely not to be mined until some time in the fu-

‘9 Kirk, “A Third Pricing Phase: Stability ?,” pp. 9, 12.20 Kirk, ‘ ‘Cobalt, ’ Mineral Commodity Summar-ies-f987, p. 39.

ture. However, in an emergency and with govern-ment support, they could produce a significantproportion of U.S. cobalt consumption for a shorttime. 21 In addition, cobalt-rich manganese crustsin the Blake Plateau off the southeastern Atlanticcoast and crusts or pavements on seamounts in thePacific Ocean contain cobalt concentrations of be-tween 0.3 and 1.6 percent (some ferromanganesecrust samples have been reported to contain up to2.5 percent), along with nickel, manganese, andother metals. These compare favorably with U.S.land-based resources that range from 0.01 to about0.55 percent cobalt.22

Future Demand and Technological Trends

U.S. consumption generally accounts for about35 percent of total world consumption. There is lit-tle prospect for major reductions in cobalt demandthrough substitution. Total U.S. demand for co-balt in 2000 is forecast to be between 24 millionand 44 million pounds, with a probable demandof 34 million pounds (table 3-2).23 Future demandfor cobalt is difficult to forecast. Both the intensityof cobalt use and the amount of cobalt-based ma-terials consumed have changed abruptly in the pastand will likely continue to change in the future.

Chromium

Properties and Uses

Chromium is used in iron and steel, nonferrousmetals, metal plating, pigments, leather process-

ZIG. Peterson, D. Blciwas, and P. Thomas, CobaJt AvaiJability—Domestic, IC 8849 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1981),p. 27.

22c. M ishra, C. Sheng-Fogg, R. Christ iansen, et al. , cob~tAvadabifity—A4arket Economy Countries, IC 9012 (Washington, DC:U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1985), p. 10,

23W. Kirk, “Cobalt,” Mineral Facts and Problems-1985 Edition,Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 180.

Table 3-2.—Forecast of U.S. and World Cobalt Demand in 2000

2000 Annual growthActual Low Probable High 1983-2000

(thousand pounds) (percent)United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5,000a 24,000 34,000 44,000 3.9Rest of world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,500 50,000 65,000 75,000 3.5

Total world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 74,000 99,000 120,000 3.7au,s, data for 1966 from W, Kirk, “cobalt,” Mineral Commodity Summaries— 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1~7), P. 38.

SOURCE: Adapted from W. Kirk, “Cobalt,” Mineral Facts and Problems–1985 Edition, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1966), p, 182,


ing, catalysts, and refractories. In 1986, 88 percentof the chromite (common ore form of chromium)consumed in the United States was used by themetallurgical and chemical industry, and 12 per-cent by the refractory industry.

Metallurgical Uses. —Chromium is used in avariety of alloy steels, cast irons, and nonferrousalloys. Chromium is used in these applications toimprove hardness, reduce creep, enhance impactstrength, resist corrosion, reduce high-temperatureoxidation, improve wear, or reduce galling.

High-carbon ferrochromium contains between52 and 72 percent chromium and between 6 and9.5 percent carbon. Low-carbon ferrochromiumcontains between 60 and 75 percent chromium andbetween 0.01 and 0.75 percent carbon. Ferrochro-mium-silicon contains between 38 and 45 percentsilicon and between 34 and 42 percent chromium.

The largest amount of ferrochromium (76 per-cent in 1986) is used for stainless steels. Chromiumis also used in nonferrous alloys and is essential inthe so-called ‘‘superalloys’ used in jet engines andindustrial gas turbines. In 1984, about 3 percentof the ferrochromium and pure chromium metalused for metallurgy was for superalloys; less than1 percent was used for other nonferrous alloys.Chromium, along with cobalt, nickel, aluminum,titanium, and minor alloying metals, enables super-alloy to withstand high mechanical and thermalstress and to resist oxidation and hot corrosion athigh operating temperatures.

Chemical Uses.—Chromium-containing chem-icals include color pigments, corrosion inhibitors,drilling mud additives, catalysts, etchers, and tan-ning compounds. Sodium bichromate is the pri-mary intermediate product from which otherchromium-containing compounds are produced.

Refractory Uses. —Chromite is used to producerefractory brick and mortar. The major use forrefractory brick is for metallurgical furnaces, glass-making, and cement processing. Use of chromitein refractories improves structural strength anddimensional stability at high temperatures.

National Importance

Chromium is considered to be a strategic mate-rial that is critical to national security and poten-

table 3-3.—1986 National Defense ChromiumStockpile Goals and Inventories (as of Sept. 30, 1986)

Inventory asMaterial Goal Inventory percent of goal

(thousand tons)Chromite:

Metallurgical . . . . . 3,200 1,874 59Chemical . . . . . . . . 675 242 36Refractory . . . . . . . 850 391 46

Ferrochromium:High-carbon . . . . . . 185 502 271Low-carbon 75 300 400Silicon . . . . . . . . . . 90 57 63Chromium metal . . 20 4 20

SOURCE J Papp, “Chromium,” Mineral COrnrnocfity Summaries– 1987 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 35,

tially very vulnerable to supply interruptions24 (ta-ble 3-1 and 3-3). It is critical because of limitationson substitutes for chromium in the vacuum-meltedsuperalloys needed for hot corrosion and oxidationresistance in high-temperature applications and inits extensive use in stainless steels.

The Republic of South Africa accounted for 59percent of total chromium imports (chromite ore,concentrates, and ferroalloys) between 1982 and1985. Other suppliers included Zimbabwe, whichprovided 11 percent, Turkey 7 percent, and Yugo-slavia 5 percent.

25 The Republic of South Africaand the U.S.S.R jointly led in world productionof chromite in 1986, producing about 3.7 and 3.3million tons respectively, far ahead of the nextlargest producer, Albania, with about 1 milliontons.26 Some foreign producing countries, such asBrazil, are producing and exporting ferrochromiumfrom chromite deposits which would not be com-petitive in the world market if shipped as ore orconcentrate. However, by adding the value of con-version to ferroalloy, both the Brazilian and theZimbabwe deposits remain competitive.


The United States currently has no chromite re-

serves or reserve base. Domestic resources havebeen mined sporadically when prices are high, or

L+ Office of TechnoloW Assessment, Strategic Materials: Technol-ogies to Reduce U.S. Import Vulnerability, p. 52.

25J. Papp, “Chromium,” Mineral Facts and Problems—J985 Edi-tion, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986),p. 141.

2’J. Papp, ‘ ‘Chromium, Minerals Yearbook (Washington DC:U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1985), p, 229.


with the aid of government price supports, or intimes of national emergencies. Under normal eco-nomic conditions of world trade, U.S. chromite re-sources are not competitive with foreign sources ofsupply. There are 43 known domestic deposits esti-mated to contain approximately 7 million tons ofcontained chromic oxide as demonstrated resourcesand 25 million tons as identified resources .27 U.S.chromite deposits range between 0.4 percent and25.8 percent chromic oxide content.

The major known domestic deposits of chromiteminerals are the stratiform deposits in the StillwaterComplex in Montana and in small podiform-typedeposits in northern California, southern Oregon,and southern Alaska. Placer chromite deposits oc-cur in beach sands in southwest Oregon and streamsands in Georgia, North Carolina, and Penn-sylvania.

Although 91 percent of U.S. demonstrated chro-mite resources and 84 percent of identified resourcescould be converted as low-chromium ferrochro-mium, the U.S. Bureau of Mines doubts that do-mestic chromite resources could be produced eco-nomically even with much higher market pricesthan the current $470 per ton for low-chromiumferrochromium and $600 per ton for high-chro-mium ferrochromium. Most low-chrome ferrochro-mium could be produced domestically for a littleless than about $730 per ton, and high-chrome fer-rochromium would cost even more.28

With enormous reserves of all grades of chromitein other parts of the world, it is doubtful that themeager chromite resources of the United Statescould justify the investment needed to rebuild thedomestic ferrochromium production capacity thathas been lost. In addition, there is currently sig-nificant overcapacity in the ferrochromium indus-try in the market economy countries. Estimates in1986 showed production capacity of 2.6 million tonscompared to demand of 1.9 million tons.29 Therehave been no significant shortages of ferrochro-mium encountered in world markets in the past toindicate that things might change in the future.

“J. Lemons, Jr., E. Boyle, Jr., and C. Kilgore, Chromium

Atailabifity-Domestic, IC 8895 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau ofMines, 1982), p. 4.

*eIbid., p. 9.29W. Dresler, ‘‘A Feasibility Study of Ferrochromium Extraction

from Bird River Concentrates in a Submerged-Arc Furnace, Cl&fBulletin, vol. 79 (September 1986), pp. 98-105.

Domestic Production

The United States was the world’s leading chro-mite producer in the 1800s, but, since 1900, sel-dom more than 1,000 tons have been produced an-nually except for periods of wartime emergencies.During both World Wars and the Korean War,production increased when the Federal Govern-ment subsidized domestic chromite production. Do-mestic production ceased in 1961 when the last pur-chase contract under the Defense Production Actterminated. Since then, there was one attempt toreopen a mine closed in the 1950s, but, after pro-ducing only a small amount of chromite for exportin 1976, the mine was again abandoned. There hasbeen no domestic production reported since.

The United States imported and consumed about512,000 tons of chromite ore and concentrate in1984, primarily for use in chemicals and refracto-ries. In 1973, the United States ferrochromium ca-pacity was about 400,000 tons (contained chro-mium); by 1984, domestic capacity had shrunk toabout 187,000 tons—a decrease of about 54 per-cent.30 U.S. capacity is expected to shrink further,to perhaps 150,000 tons by 1990.31 Ferrochromiumproduction in 1984 was about 51,000 tons (con-tained chromium), or approximately 27 percent uti-lization of installed capacity .32 Production in 1984was nearly four times that of 1983 as a result ofgovernment contracts for the conversion of stock-piled chromite to ferrochromium for the NationalDefense Stockpile. Once upgrading of the stock-pile is completed, ferrochromium production mayreturn to levels at or below 1983 production (13,000tons—contained chromium). In 1984, only two ofthe six domestic ferrochromium firms were oper-ating plants, and those only at low production levelsor intermittently.


Commodity analysts differ on the outlook for fu-ture chromium demand. One U.S. Bureau of

30G. Guenther, “Ferroalloys,” The Competitiveness of AmericanA4etaJ Mining and Processing, ch. VIII (Washington, DC: Congres-sional Research Service, 1986), p. 127.

31 Papp, ‘ ‘Chromium, Mineral Facts and Problems—1985 Edi-tion, p. 141.

32 Papp, ‘ ‘Chromium, Minerals Yearbook—1984, p, 220.


Table 3-4.–Forecasts for U.S. Chromium Demand in 2000(thousand tons of contained chromium)

2000End use 1983 Low Probable High

Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 90 110 121Refractory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 27 35 47Fabricated metal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 60 80 100Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 75 100 130Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 80 100 130Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 300 390 500SOURCE: J, Papp, “Chromium,” &fineral Facts and Problems— 1965 Editiorr, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U S. Bureau of Mines,

1986), p. 152

Mines report foresees an increase in domestic chro-mium demand at a rate of about 6.5 percent peryear between 1983 and 2000 (table 3-4),33 from ap-proximately 329,000 tons in 1983 to between632,000 tons and about one million tons by 2000,with the most probable estimate being 815,000 tons.About 83 percent of the probable estimated demandin 2000 is expected to be used in metals; 13 per-cent in chemicals; and 4 percent in refractories.

Based on trends in chromium consumption anduse, another Bureau of Mines report, produced incooperation with basic industry analysts of the De-partment of Commerce, foresees a different de-mand scenario. This scenario is based on the the-ory that demand for ferrochromium is largelydetermined by the demand for stainless steel. Do-mestic production of stainless steel has remainedrelatively stable since 1980 at between 1.7 millionand 1.8 million tons per year, with the exceptionof 1982 when it dipped to 1.2 million tons. Althoughchromium content of specific alloy and stainlesssteels remains stable, the use of high-chromiumcontent steels has decreased in volume .34

There is significant potential for reducing theconsumption of chromium through substitution bylow-chromium steels, titanium, or plastics for stain-less steel in less-demanding applications. The Na-tional Materials Advisory Board (NMAB) deter-mined that 60 percent of the chromium used instainless steel could be saved in a supply emergencyby the use of low-chromium substitutes or no-chro-mium materials that either currently exist or couldbe developed within 10 years.35 Only 20 to 30 per-

33 Papp, ‘ ‘Chromium, ,$ fincral Facts and Problcms—1985, p. 152.34 Domc5t1c ~onsumption Trends, 1972-82, and Forecasts tO J 993

for Twel}e Major Me(a/s, Open File Report 27-86 (Washington DC:U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 7,

35 ~-at iona] Materials Advisorv Board, Concingenc}, Plans for Chro-

cent of the chromium currently used domesticallyin stainless steel is considered to be irreplaceable.Substitution may also displace some of the chro-mite used in refractories with the use of low-chro-mite bricks or dolomite bricks. Substitutes for chro-mium in pigments and plating are also available,although at some sacrifice in desirable properties.

Use of chromium in chemicals generally reflectsa slow but steady growth in chromium consump-tion, with expanded capacity of the chemical in-dustry offsetting a decrease in the intensity of useof chromium. The use of chromite-containingrefractories has significantly declined as the resultof technological improvements in steel furnaces;open hearth furnaces have given way to electric arcfurnaces and basic oxygen furnaces (BOF) in thesteelmaking process. As a result of these changesin the intensity of use of chromium, the combinedBureau of Mines and Department of Commercereport forecasts a reduction in chromium demandfrom about 330,000 tons in 1983 to 275,000 tonsin 1993.36

New technology for processing chromite ores has

also increased the world supply of usable chromitereserves. Improvements in technologies to recoverchromium from laterite deposits may also makelow-grade deposits, some located in the westernUnited States, more desirable for chromium recov-ery, but probably still not competitive. 37

mium Utilization, NMAB-335 (Washington, DC: N’ational .Academ}

of Sciences, 1978).3GIbid., p. 44.37A, Silverman, J, Schmidt, P, Qucneau, et al , Strate,qic and ~rit-

kal Mineral Position of the United States with Respect to Chromlurn,Nickel, Cobalt, Alangancscr and Platinum, OTA Contract Report(Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, 1983), p. 133;see also, H, Salisbury, M. Wouden, and M, Shirts, Beneficiation ofLow-Grade California Chromite Ores, RI 8592 (Washington, DC:U.S. Bureau of %lincs, 1982), p. 15.


Manganese

Properties and Uses

Manganese plays a major role in the productionof steels and cast iron. Originally, manganese wasused to control oxygen and sulfur impurities insteel. As an alloying element, it increases thestrength, toughness, and hardness of steel and in-hibits the formation of carbides which could causebrittleness. Manganese is also an important alloy-ing element for nonferrous materials, including alu-minum and copper.

Hadfield steels containing between 10 and 14percent manganese, are wear-resistant alloys usedfor certain railroad trackage and for mining andcrushing equipment. An intermediate form of man-ganese alloy—ferromanganese —is usually used inthe manufacture of steels, alloys, and castings. Be-cause manganese can exist in several chemical ox-idation states, it is used in batteries and for chemi-cals. Several forms of manganese are used in themanufacture of welding-rod coatings and fluxes andfor coloring bricks and ceramics.

National Importance

Demand for manganese is closely related to steelproduction. Two major trends have combined tolessen domestic consumption of manganese. First,domestic steel production has declined; in 1986, itwas at about half of its peak year in 1973, whenthe U.S. produced 151 million tons of raw steel.Second, developments in steel manufacturing tech-nology have reduced the per-unit quantities of man-ganese needed. As a result, manganese consump-tion decreased from 1.5 million tons (containedmanganese) in 1973 to 700,000 tons in 1986.

In the early 1970s, the United States was import-ing about 70 percent of its manganese in the formof ores, a large share of which was processed intoferromanganese by U.S. producers. By 1979, thepicture had reversed, with imports of foreign-produced ferromanganese running at about 70 per-cent and manganese ores at about 30 percent. Since1983, imports have been about one-third as ore andtwo-thirds as ferromanganese and metal (figure 3-5). There currently is no remaining domestic ca-pacity for ferromanganese production.

Figure 3-5.—Percentage of Manganese importedinto the United States as Ferromanganese, 1973=86

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

YearLike chromium and ferrochromium, the proportion of man-ganese imported by the United States as ferromanganese andmanganese metal has increased compared to imported man-ganese ore. Manganese producing countries find it advan-tageous to ship processed ferromanganese or metal ratherthan unprocessed ore to gain the value added for export.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987,

Today, the United States is highly dependent onforeign sources for manganese concentrates, ores,ferromanganese, and manganese metal. About 30percent of the imports (based on contained man-ganese) are from the Republic of South Africa, 16percent from France (produced largely from ore im-ported from Gabon), 12 percent from Brazil, 10percent from Gabon, and 32 percent from diverseother sources .38

Manganese is a strategic material which is criti-cal to national security and is potentially vulner-able to supply interruptions (table 3-l). Severalforms of manganese are stockpiled in the NationalDefense Stockpile (table 3-5). However, the diver-sification of imports among many producing coun-tries tends to somewhat reduce U.S. vulnerabilityto supply interruptions, although some supplier na-tions obtain raw material from less-secure Africansources,


Manganese pavements and nodules (approxi-mately 15 percent manganese) on the Blake Pla-teau in the U.S. EEZ off the southeast coast are

3*T. Jones, “Manganese,” Minera/ Commodity Summaries-1987(Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p, 98.

.


Table 3-5.—Status of Manganese in the NationalDefense Stockpile— 1986 (as of Sept. 30, 1986)


(thousand tons)Battery grade. . . . . . . 87 175 201Chemical ore . . . . . . . 170 172 101Metallurgical ore. . . . 2,700 2,235 a 83Ferromanganese . . . . 439 700 160Silicomanganese . . . 0 24 —Electrolytic metal . . . 0 14 —

astockpiled metallurgical grade ore is being converted to high-carbon ferroman-ganese which will add about 472,000 tons of ferromanganese to the stockpileand reduces the amount of manganese ore.

SOURCE T Jones, “Manganese,” Mineral Commodity Summaries–1987(Wash-ington, DC: U.S Bureau of Mines, 1987), p 99.

estimated to contain as much as 41 million tons ofmanganese. Similar deposits off Hawaii and the Pa-cific Islands represent even more manganese on theseafloor within the U.S. EEZ.39

At current prices, there are no reserves of man-ganese ore in the continental United States that con-tain 35 percent or more manganese, nor are thereresources from which concentrates of that gradecould be economically produced. The 70 milliontons of contained manganese resources estimatedto exist in the United States average less than 20percent and generally contain less than 10 percentmanganese. The U.S. Bureau of Mines estimatesthat the domestic land-based subeconomic resourceswould require from 5 to 20 times the current worldprice of manganese to become commercially via-ble. 40

Should an emergency require that economicallysubmarginal domestic deposits be brought into pro-duction, the most likely would be in the northAroostook district of Maine and the Cuyuna northrange in Minnesota .41

It is unlikely that there will be much improve-ment in the U.S. manganese supply position. Pastefforts to discover rich ore bodies or to improve theefficiency of processing technology have not beensuccessful. What is known about seabed resources

39F. Manheim, “Marine Cobalt Resources, ” Science, vol. 232, May

2, 1986, Pp. 600-608.40T. Jones, “Manganese,” ,$lineral Facts and Problems—19&5 Edi-

[ion, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986),p. 486.

41 Nat ion~ Materi~s Advisor), Board, ,klanqanesc ~eCOt’C’~r ~ec~-.

nolo<gy’, h’ MAB-323 (Washington, DC: N’ational Academy of Sciences,1976).

of manganese pavement and nodules indicates thatmanganese content may range between 15 and 30percent, which makes offshore deposits at least com-parable with some onshore deposits. But the un-certainties of offshore mining ventures and theirassociated costs, coupled with marginal mineralprices, raise doubts as to their economic feasibilityas well.42


Future manganese consumption will be deter-mined mainly by requirements for steelmaking.The amount of manganese required for steelmak-ing depends on two factors: 1 ) the quantity of man-ganese used per ton of steel produced, and 2) thetotal amount of steel produced in the United States.Comparing 1982 with 1977, the intensity of use ofmanganese in the steel sector was reduced by half,and the total consumption of manganese used forproducing steel also dropped around 50 percent .43

Although there has been a trend toward the useof higher manganese contents for alloying in high-strength steels and steels needed for cryogenic ap-plications, the reduction in the intensity of use forsteels used in large volumes has far exceeded theincreases for the high-performance steels. Becausemanganese is an inexpensive commodity, there islittle incentive to develop conservation technologiesfurther.

The U.S. Bureau of Mines expects domesticmanganese demand in 2000 to range between700,000 and 1.3 million tons (manganese content),with probable demand placed at 900,000 tons (ta-ble 3-6). With 1986 apparent consumption about665 million tons, only modest growth in demandis expected through the end of the century.

Nickel

Properties and Uses

Nickel imparts strength, hardness, and corrosionresistance over a wide range of temperatures when

42c, Hi]]man, Manganese Nodu]e Resources of Three Areas in theNortheast Pacific Ocean: With Proposed Mining-Beneficiation Sys-tems and Costs, IC 8933 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines,1983).

43 Domest ic Consumpt ion Trends, 1972-82, and Forecasts to 1993

for Twelve Major Meta/s, Open File Report 27-86 (Washington, DC:U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 77.


Table 3-6.—Forecast for U.S. and World Manganese Demand in 2000


(thousand tons) (percent)United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665a 660 920 1,260 1.9Rest of world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,132 8,200 10,200 13,900 1.3

Total world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 8,900 11,100 15,200 1.4au,s, data for 1988 from T. Jones, “Manganese, ” ~irreral Commodity Surnrnaries-1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 98.

SOURCE: Adapted from T. Jones, “Manganese, “ in Minera/ Facts and Problems— 1985 Edition (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1988), p. 495

alloyed with other metals. Approximately 39 per-cent of the primary nickel consumed in the UnitedStates in 1986 went into stainless and alloy steels;31 percent was used in nonferrous alloys; and 22percent was used for electroplating. The remain-ing 8 percent was used in chemicals, batteries, dyesand pigments, and insecticides.

Stainless steels may contain between 1.25 per-cent and 37 percent nickel, although the averageis about 6 percent. Alloy steels, such as those usedfor high-strength components in heavy equipmentand aircraft operations, contain about 2 percentnickel, although the average is less than 1 percent,while superalloy used for very high-temperatureand high-stress applications like jet engines and in-dustrial turbines may contain nearly 60 percentnickel. Nickel also is used in a wide range of otheralloys (e. g., nickel-copper, copper-nickel, nickel-silver, nickel-molybdenum, and bronze).

National Importance

Most uses for nickel are considered critical fornational defense and are generally important to theU.S. industrial economy overall. However, basedon criteria that consider supply vulnerability andpossible substitute materials, OTA determined ina 1985 assessment that nickel, while economicallyimportant, is not a major ‘‘strategic’ material .44Nickel is stockpiled in the National Defense Stock-pile. The stockpile goal is 200,000 tons of containednickel, and the inventory in 1986 was 37,200 tons—about 20 percent of the goal.

The United States imported about 78 percent ofthe nickel consumed in 1986.45 Canada was the ma-jor supplier of nickel (40 percent) to the United

440ffice of Technology Assessment, Strategic Materials: Technol-

ogies to Reduce U.S. Import Vulnerability, p. 52.4sp. Chamberlain, ‘‘Nickel, Mineral Commodity Summaries—

1987 (Washington, DC: L’, S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 108.

States; Australia provided 14 percent, Norway 11percent, Botswana 10 percent, and 25 percent wasobtained from other countries, including the Repub-lic of South Africa, New Caledonia, DominicanRepublic, Colombia, and Finland. In 1986, theUnited States consumed 184,000 tons of nickel,compared to 283,000 tons in 1974.


Domestically produced nickel will probably con-tinue to be a very small part of U.S. total supplyin the future. U.S. demonstrated resources are esti-mated to be about 9 million tons of nickel in place,from which 5.3 million tons may be recoverable.46

Identified nickel resources are about 9.9 milliontons, which could yield 6 million tons of metal. Thedomestic reserve base is estimated to be 2.8 mil-lion tons of contained nickel.47 Although U.S. re-sources are substantial, the average grade of do-mestic nickel resources is about 0.21 percent(ranging from 0.16 percent to 0.91 percent), com-pared to the average world grade of nearly 0.98 per-cent. Ferromanganese crusts on Pacific Ocean sea-mounts are reported to be about 0.49 percentnickel .48

Domestic Production

Nickel production from U.S. mines was 1,100tons in 1986, with about 900 tons of nickel recov-ered as a nickel sulfate byproduct of two primary

4’D. Buckingham and J. Lemons, Jr, , IVickef Avai]abi/ity -

Dornes[ic, IC 8988 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1984),p. 25.

47 Chamberlain, ‘ ‘Nickel, ” Mineral Commodity Summaries—1987,p. 109.

48W, Harvey and P. Ammann, “Metallurgical Processing Com-ponent for the Mining Development Scenario for Cobalt-Rich Fer-romanganese Oxide Crust, Final Draft Chapter, Manganese CrustEIS Project (Arlington, MA: Arlington Technical Services, 1985),pp. 3-2


copper operations. 4 9 T h e o n l y d o m e s t i c m i n e t o

metal production came from Hanna Mining Com-pany’s Nickel Mountain Mine in Oregon, whichproduced ferronickel; the mine closed permanentlyin August 1986. Secondary recovery of nickel fromrecycled old and new scrap contributed about39,000 tons in 1986, which was approximately 21percent of apparent consumption.


After growing at an average rate of roughly 6percent per year for most of the century, nickel con-sumption flattened in the 1970s. From 1978 to

1982, the consumption sharply declined beforestabilizing in the mid- 1980s. A major factor in thedeclining consumption between 1978 and 1982 was

the drop in the intensity of nickel use. Less nickelwas used per value of Gross National Product andper capita each year during the period. Since 1982,the intensity of use has remained fairly constant.

Much of the decrease in the intensity of use re-sulted from the substitution of plastics in coatings,containers, automobile parts, and plumbing, anddisplacement in the use of some stainless steel.Other possible substitute materials include alumi-num, coated steel, titanium, platinum, cobalt, andcopper. These substitutes, however, can meanpoorer performance or added cost. Higher importsof finished goods and the reduced size of automo-biles also reduce domestic nickel demand.

Domestic demand for nickel in 2000 is forecastto be between 300,000 and 400,000 tons, with theprobable level being about 350,000 tons (table 3-7).50 The forecast for a 2.6 percent annual growth

in domestic nickel demand through 2000 is due toprojected growth in total consumption, primarilyfor pollution abatement and waste treatment ma-chinery, mass transit systems, and aerospace com-ponents. 51

Properties and

Copper offers

Copper

Uses

very high electrical and thermalconductivity, strength, and wear- and corrosion-resistance, and it is nonmagnetic. As a result, cop-per is valuable both as a basic metal and in alloys(e.g., brass, bronze, copper nickel, copper-nickel-zinc-alloy, and leaded copper), and ranks third inworld metal consumption after steel and aluminum.About 43 percent of U.S. copper products are usedin building construction, 24 percent in electrical andelectronic products, 13 percent for industrial ma-chinery and equipment, 10 percent in transporta-tion, and the remaining 10 percent in general prod-ucts manufacturing.

In the aggregate, the largest use of copper (65percent) is in electrical equipment, in the transmis-sion of electrical energy, in electronic and comput-ing equipment, and in telecommunications systems.Because of its corrosion resistance, copper has manyuses in industrial equipment and marine and air-craft products. Copper is used extensively forplumbing, roofing, gutters, and other constructionpurposes. Brass is used in ordnance, military equip-ment, and machine tools that are important to na-tional security. Copper chemicals are also used inagriculture, in medicine, and as wood preservatives.Once used extensively in coinage, copper has been

*gChamberlain, “Nickel,” Mineral Commodity Summaries-1987,p. 109.

50S. Sibley, ‘‘ Nickel,’ Mineral Facts and Problems—1985 Edition,Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 547.

SIInternation~ Trade Administration, The End- USC Market fi)r 13

Non-Ferrous Metals (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofCommerce, 1986), p. 32.

Table 3-7.— Forecast of U.S. and World Nickel Demand in 2000


(thousand tons) (percent)United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184a 300 350 400 2.6Rest of world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 1,000 1,300 1,500 2.9

Total world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,300 1,700 1,900 2.7au, s. data for 1986 from P. Chamberlain, “Nickel,” Mineral Commodity Summaries– 1987 Edifion (Washington, DC: US. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p 108.

SOURCE Adapted from S. Sibley, “Nickel, ” Mineral Facts and Problems– 1985 Edition (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 548.


largely replaced by zinc and zinc-copper alloys inU.S. currency.

National Importance

Copper is a strategic commodity in the NationalDefense Stockpile. The stockpile goal is one mil-lion tons, with an inventory of 22,000 tons in 1986.The United States is the leading consumer of re-fined copper; it accounted for about 29 percent ofworld consumption, or 2.2 million tons of copper,in 1986. In 1982 the United States import reliancewas 1 percent of the copper it consumed; by 1985,it was importing 28 percent .52 Imports came largelyfrom North and South America: Chile, 40 percent;Canada, 29 percent; Peru, 8 percent; Mexico, 2percent. Other sources were: Zambia, 7 percent;Zaire, 6 percent; and elsewhere, 8 percent. Since1982, Chile has led the world in copper produc-tion, followed by the United States, Canada,U. S. S. R., Zambia, and Zaire,


World copper reserves total about 375 milliontons, with 80 percent residing in market economycountries. The world’s reserve base is about 624million tons of copper, Chile has the largest singleshare of world reserves, accounting for 23 percent;the United States is second with 17 percent .53

The United States has a reserve base of about99 million tons of copper, with reserves of 63 mil-lion tons. The average grade of domestic copperore is about 0.5 percent copper, while the worldaverage is close to 0.87 percent .54 By comparison,copper in some polymetallic sulfide deposits thathave been recovered from the seafloor show highvariability ranging between 0.5 to 5 percent .55

Domestic Production

The United States mined 1.2 million tons of cop-per in 1986—second only to Chile in world mineproduction. Domestic mine production peaked in

5’J. Jo]IY and D. Edelstein, “Copper,” ~ineraf comrno~jty sum.

maries—J987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 42.“J Jolly, “COpper,” Mineral Facts and Problems-1985 Edition,

Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 203.ML. Sousa, The U.S. Copper Industry (Washington, DC: U.S.

Bureau of Mines, 1981), p. 27.SSV, McKe]vey, Subsea Mineral Resources, Bulletin 1689-A (Wash-

ington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 1986), p. 82.

1970, 1973, and 1981 at about 1.7 million tons eachyear, but then in response to depressed prices anda worldwide recession, production was cut back.Since then, copper production has recovered slowlyto roughly the 1980 level. Copper’s recent recov-ery has benefited from industry-wide cost cuttingand improvements in efficiency and productivityresulting from equipment modernizations and re-negotiated labor agreements.

The United States is one of the world’s largestproducers of refined copper, accounting for about16 percent of world production in 1985. Copperis one of the most extensively recycled of all thecommon metals. Nearly 22 percent of domesticapparent consumption is recycled from old scrap.Copper prices peaked in 1980 at about $1.00 perpound (current dollars) as a result of high demandand industry labor disruptions, but have since sunkto nearly $0.62 (current dollars) in 1986. Withlower prices, there is little incentive to increase ef-forts to recycle used copper.

Notwithstanding the large reserve base of cop-per in the United States, lower-cost imported cop-per has displaced appreciable domestic productionin recent years. During 1984-85, domestic copperrefinery capacity was reduced by about 410,000tons, and several major mines closed. Between 1974and 1985, domestic operating refinery capacity de-clined from 3.4 million tons to about 2 million tonsas the result of major industry restructuring andcost reduction.

A number of factors have contributed to the dis-advantage that U.S. producers face in meeting for-eign competition, e.g., lower ore grade, higher la-bor costs, and more stringent environmentalregulations and until recently, foreign exchangerates. Although significant progress recently hasbeen made by U.S. copper producers to increaseproductivity and reduce costs at the mine andsmelter, there is some doubt whether domestic pro-ducers can maintain their market position in thelong term.56


Since 1981, worldwide copper production has in-creased significantly while the rate of demand

sscomm~ities Research Unit, Copper Studies, VO1. 14, No. 4 (New

York, NY: CRV Consultants, 1986), p. 7.


growth has been moderated largely by economicconditions and, to a lesser extent, by reduction inthe intensity of copper use and substitution of othermaterials. Thus, today there is the possibility ofsubstantial excess mine capacity in the world cop-per industry. Overly optimistic forecasts of demandbased on consumption trends made in the late 1960sand early 1970s, forecasts of higher real prices, andthe unforeseen onset of worldwide recessions be-ginning in 1975 and 1981 contributed to excess cop-per production.

The U.S. Bureau of Mines forecasts that domes-tic demand will increase to between 2.6 tons and4.5 million tons by 2000, with probable demandabout 3.1 million tons of copper (table 3-8). U.S.demand is forecast to increase at an annual rateof approximately 1.9 percent, while the rest of theworld is expected to expand copper use at the higherrate of 2.9 percent.

The intensity of copper use fell by about one-fourth between 1970 and 1980.57 Reductions in usewere caused by the reduction in size of automo-tive and consumer goods, changes in design to con-serve materials or increase efficiency, and substi-tutions of aluminum, plastics, and, to a lesserextent, optical fibers. Although the decline in theintensity of copper use is not expected to continueat the 1970s’ rate and even could be offset by gainsin other areas, the future of copper demand is un-certain. Moreover, copper is an industrial metal,and its consumption is linked to industrial activityand capital expansion. This makes copper demandvery sensitive to general economic activity.

sJDomes(ic consumption Trends; 1972-82, and Forecasts to J993for Tweh’e Major Metals, p. 60.

Zinc

Properties and Uses

Zinc is the third most widely used nonferrousmetal, exceeded only by aluminum and copper. Itis used for galvanizing (coating) steel, for manyzinc-based alloys, and for die castings. Zinc is alsoused in industrial chemicals, agricultural chemicals,rubber, and paint pigments. Construction mate-rials account for about 45 percent of the slab zincconsumed in the United States; transportation ac-counts for 25 percent; machinery, 10 percent; elec-trical, 10 percent; and other uses, 10 percent.

National Importance

During the last 15 to 20 years, the United Stateshas gone from near self-sufficiency in zinc metalproduction to importing 74 percent of the zinc con-sumed domestically in 1986.58 Zinc is a componentof the National Defense Stockpile; the stockpile goalis 1.4 million tons and the inventory in 1986 wasabout 378,000 tons—27 percent of the goal.

The United States consumed about 1.1 milliontons of zinc in 1986. Between 1972 and 1982, U.S.slab zinc consumption decreased by nearly half,59

a dramatic drop attributable to the combined ef-fects of the economic recession and a decline in theintensity of use of zinc in construction and manu-facturing.

Zinc is imported as both metal and concentrates.Canada provides about half the zinc imported intothe United States; Mexico provides 10 percent;Peru, 8 percent; and Australia, 4 percent. All of

58J. Jolly, “Zinc,” Mineraf Commodity Summar]es- 1987 (k$’ash -ington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p, 180

sgDomestic Consumption Trends, 1972-82, and Forecasts to 1.99.7for Twelve Major Metals, p, 131,

Table 3-8.—U.S. and World Copper Demand in 2000


(thousand tons) (percent)United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,390” 2,600 3,100 3,900 1.9Rest of world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,300 11,700 13,400 15,000 2.9

Total world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 14,300 16,500 18,800 2.7au s, data for 1986, J. Jolly, and D Edelstein, “copper,” Mineral Commodity Summaries— 1987 (Washington, DC: U S Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 42, world data for

1983 from source below

SOURCE Adapted from J Jolly, “Copper,” Minera/ Facts and Prob/ems– 1985 Ed/t/on (Washington, DC: Bureau of Mines, 1986), p 219


the major foreign sources of supply are consideredto be secure, and there is little risk of supply inter-ruptions.


The U.S. reserve base is estimated to be about53 million tons of zinc. Domestic reserves are nearly22 million tons. Zinc is generally associated withother minerals containing precious metals, lead,and/or copper. The world reserve base is estimatedto be 300 million tons of zinc, with major depositslocated in Canada, Australia, Peru, and Mexico.World zinc resources are estimated to be nearly 2billion tons, GO Zinc occurs in seabed polymetallicsulfide deposits along with numerous other metals.The few samples of sulfide material that have beenrecovered for analysis show wide ranges in zinc con-tent (30-0.2 percent). 61

Domestic Production

U.S. mine production of zinc in 1986 was about209,000 tons, down from 485,000 tons in 1976. Thedecline is attributed to poor market conditions anddepressed prices. Some mines shut down in 1986are expected to reopen in 1987, and new mines willopen. Production is then expected to return toaround the 1985 level, or about 250,000 tons. Do-mestic zinc metal production in 1986 also reachedlows comparable to those of the depression in theearly 1930s. Recycling accounted for 413,000 tonsof zinc—about 37 percent of domestic consump-tion—in 1986.


The U.S. Bureau of Mines forecasts that bothdomestic and world zinc demand will increase at

‘OJ. Jolly, “Zinc,” Mineral Commodity Summaries—1987, p. 181.61 McKelvey, Subsea Miner& Resources, p. 82.

the rate of about 2 percent annually through 2000.Probable U.S. demand in 2000 is forecast to beabout 1.5 million tons, with possible demand rang-ing between a low of 1.1 million tons and a highof 2.3 million tons (table 3-9).

A major determinant of future zinc demand willbe its use in the construction (galvanized metalstructural members) and automotive industries,which together account for about 60 percent of zincconsumption in the U.S. Although use of zinc bythe domestic automotive industry has decreased inrecent years, this trend is expected to reverse, andmanufacturers will again use more electro-galva-nized, corrosion-resistant parts as a competitivestrategy through extended warranty protection.

Aluminum, plastics, and magnesium can substi-tute for many zinc uses, including castings, protec-tive coatings, and corrosion protection. Aluminum,magnesium, titanium, and zirconium compete withzinc for some chemical and pigment applications.

It is likely that the U.S. will continue to rely inpart on foreign sources of supply; however, domes-tic resources in Alaska and perhaps Wisconsinmight be developed to offset some imports.62 Sec-ondary sources and recycling of zinc could becomemore important in the future with improvementsin recycling technology and better market con-ditions.

Gold

Properties and Uses

Gold is a unique commodity because it is con-sidered a measure and store of wealth. Jewelry andart accounted for 48 percent of its use in the United

bZJolly , ‘‘Zinc, Mineraf Facts and Problems—J985 Edition, Bul]e-tin 675 (Washington, DC: U. S, Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 939.

Table 3.9.—Forecast of U.S. and World Zinc Demand in 2000


(thousand tons) (percent)United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,130a 1,100 1,540 2,310 2.0Rest of world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,340 7,490 8,820 10,250 2.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 8,590 10,360 12,560 2.0au,s, data for 19w from J, Jolly, “zinc,” &f/nera/ COnJr-nOdity Wrrrnan’m— 1987 (Washington, DC: US. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 180, wotld data for 1983 frOm 50urce below.

SOURCE: Adapted from J. Jolly, “Zinc,” Mineral Facts and Prob/erns-1985 Edition (Washington, DC: US. Bureau of Mines, 1988), p, 938,


States in 1986, Gold’s resistance to corrosion makesit suitable for electronics uses and dentistry. Goldis also used in the aerospace industry in brazingalloys, in jet and rocket engines, and as a heatreflector on some components. Industrial and elec-tronic applications accounted for about 35 percentof 1986 consumption, dental 16 percent, and in-vestment bars about 1 percent of the gold consumedin 1986. Although gold is exchanged in the openmarket, about 1.2 billion troy ounces—one-thirdof the gold mined thus far in the world—is retainedby governments.

National Importance

Gold is not a component of the National DefenseStockpile, but the U.S. Treasury keeps a residualstock of about 263 million troy ounces of bullion.Although gold is no longer linked directly to theU.S. monetary system, its value in the world eco-nomic equation continues to be a hedge against fu-ture economic uncertainties. Should the UnitedStates or other major countries return to a regu-lated gold standard, its price could be affected sig-nificantly. Recently the United States issued theGolden Eagle coin for sale as a collector’s and in-vestor’s item, but gold is not normally circulatedas currency.

Apparent U.S. consumption of gold was 3.3 mil-lion troy ounces in 1986, whereas about 3.6 mil-lion troy ounces were produced by U.S. mines. 63

When U.S. primary industrial gold demand peakedin 1972 at about 6.6 million troy ounces, importsrelative to domestic production were about 71 per-cent. At the lowest primary demand level in 1980(1 million troy ounces), net imports exceeded pri-mary demand by nearly 2.6 million troy ounces. 64

Canada is the largest single source of imported gold.


The United States gold reserve base is about 120million troy ounces. Most of the reserve base is inlode deposits. The world reserve base of gold isabout 1.5 billion ounces, of which about half is lo-cated in the Republic of South Africa. 65 Some off-

‘3J. Lucas, “Gold,” Mineral Commodity Summaries—J987 (Wash-ington, DC: U. S, Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 62.

“J. Lucas, “Gold,” ,%finera/ Facts and Problems— 1985 .Edition,

Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 336,65 Lucas, “Gold,” MincraJ Commodity Summaries-1987, p. 63.

shore placer deposits, such as those currently be-ing experimentally dredge mined by InspirationMines near Nome, Alaska, maybe considered partof the reserve base.

Domestic Production

Domestic gold production was at an all-time highin 1986 with about 3.6 million ounces mined.Lowest production within the last 10 years was964,000 ounces in 1979. The Republic of SouthAfrica produced about 21 million ounces of goldin 1986—over 40 percent of total world production.Compared to major gold mines in South Africa,the U. S. S. R., and Canada, most existing and po-tential U.S. gold mines are low-grade, short-lifeoperations with annual outputs between 20,000 and90,000 troy ounces. 66


Generally, domestic primary demand for goldhas decreased steadily since its peak at 6.3 millionounces in 1972. Nevertheless, the U.S. Bureau ofMines forecasts that domestic gold demand will in-crease at an average annual rate of about 2.4 per-cent through 2000. Domestic primary demand isforecast to be between a low of 2.8 million ouncesand a high of 4.6 million ounces in 2000, with theprobable demand at 3.7 million troy ounces. 67 De-mand in the rest of the world is expected to growat a slower pace of 1.7 percent annually through2000.

While other metals may substitute for gold, sub-stitution is generally done at some sacrifice in prop-erties and performance. Platinum-group metals areoccasionally substituted for gold but with increasedcosts and with metals considered to be critical andstrategic. Silver may substitute in some instancesat lower cost,involves somebendability.

but it is less corrosion-resistant andcompromise in performance and de-

G’p, Thomas and E. Boyle, Jr., Gold A\railabilir}’— W’orld, IC 9070(Washington DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 38.

b7Lucas, “Gold, ’ Mineral Facts and Problems—198.5 )iiition, p.335.


Platinum-Group Metals

Properties and Uses

The platinum-group metals (PGMs) consist of

six closely related metals that commonly occur to-gether in nature: platinum, palladium, rhodium,iridium ruthenium, and osmium .68 They are notabundant metals in the earth’s crust; hence theirvalue is correspondingly high. At one time, nearlyall of the platinum metals were used for jewelry,art, or laboratory ware but during the last 30 or40 years they have become indispensable to indus-try, which now consumes 97 percent of the PGMsused annually in the United States.

Industry uses PGMs for two primary purposes:1) corrosion resistance in chemical, electrical, glassfiber, and dental-medical applications, and 2) acatalysis for chemical and petroleum refining andautomotive emission control. About 46 percent ofPGMs was used for the automotive industry in1986, 18 percent for electronic applications, 18 per-cent for dental and medical uses, 7 percent forchemical production, and 14 percent for miscellane-ous uses.69 Although the importance of platinum

for jewelry and art has diminished as industrial usesincrease, a significant amount of the precious metalis retained as ingots, coins, or bars by investors.

While the PGMs are often referred to collectivelyfor convenience, each has special properties. Forexample, platinum-palladium oxidation catalystsare used for control of auto emissions, but a smallamount of rhodium is added to improve efficiency.Palladium is used in low-voltage electrical contacts,but ruthenium is often added to accommodatehigher voltages.70

National Importance

The United States is highly import-dependentfor PGMs. About 98 percent of PGMs consumedin 1986 were imported. The Republic of South.——

bBThe disparities in demand among PGMs and the variance inproportion and grade of individual metals recovered from PGMmineral deposits complicate the assessment of supply-demand for thismetal group. For simplicity, the PGMs are discussed as a unit,

69J. Loebenstein, “Platinum-Group Metals, ” Mineral Commodity

Summaries—1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987),p. 118.

70J. Loebenstein, “Platinum-Group Metals, ” Mineral Facts andProblems—1985 Edition, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bu-reau of Mines, 1986), p. 599.

Africa supplied 43 percent of U.S. consumption,United Kingdom 17 percent, U.S.S.R. 12 percent,and Canada, Colombia and other sources 28 per-cent. Because nearly all of the PGMs imported fromthe United Kingdom originated in South Africaprior to refining, the Republic of South Africa ac-tually provides the United States with approxi-mately 60 percent of its platinum imports.

Potential instability in southern Africa, depen-dence on the U.S.S.R. for a portion of U.S. sup-ply, scarcity of domestic resources, and the impor-tance that PGMs have assumed in industrial goodsand processes make platinum metals a first tier crit-ical and strategic material. 71 Platinum, palladium,and iridium are retained in the National DefenseStockpile (table 3-10).


There are several major areas with PGM depositsthat are currently considered to be economic orsubeconomic in the United States. The domesticreserve base is estimated to be about 16 million troyounces.72 Of that, however, only 1 million ounces

are considered to be reserves. 73 Most of the PGMreserves are byproduct components of copper re-serves. Demonstrated resources may contain 3 mil-lion ounces of platinum of which 2 million ouncesare gauged to be recoverable. 74 Some estimatesplace identified and undiscovered U.S. resourcesat 300 million ounces. 75

Tloffice of Technology Assessment, Strategic MateriaIs: Technol-ogies to Reduce U.S. Vulnerability, p. 52.

72 Loebenstein, “Platinum-Group Metals, ” Minera) CommoditySummaries—1987, p. 119.

731 bid., p. 21.T+T. Anstett, D, B]eiwas, and C. Sheng-Fogg, Platinum A vaiJabil-

ity—Market Economy Countries, IC 8897 (Washington, DC: U.S.Bureau of Mines, 1982), p. 4.

751 bid., p. 6.

Table 3-10.—Platinum. Group Metals in the NationalDefense Stockpile (as of Sept. 30, 1986)


(thousand troy ounces)Platinum. . . . . . . . . . . 1,310 440 34Palladium . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 1,262 42Iridium . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 30 30aThe stockpile also Contain 13,043 troy ounces of nonstockpile-grade Platinumand 2,214 ounces of palladium.

SOURCE: J.R. Lobenstein, “Platinum-Group Metals, ” Mineral Commodity Surn-rnaries — 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 119.


The PGM potential of the Stillwater Complexin Montana is higher than that of the other knowndomestic deposits. Stillwater PGMs are found inconjunction with nickel and copper. The StillwaterMining Company, which is capable of producing500 tons of ore per day, began producing PGMsin March 1987, but the mineral concentrates arebeing shipped abroad for refining to metal. Nearly80 percent of the PGMs in Stillwater ores is pal-ladium, and the remainder is mostly platinum.Platinum generally brings several times the priceof palladium. The Salmon River deposit in Alaskais an alluvial gravel placer that is estimated to con-tain about 500,000 troy ounces of recoverable plati-num. The Ely Spruce and Minnamax deposits innortheastern Minnesota are estimated to containless than 800,000 troy ounces of platinum at thedemonstrated level. 76

World resources are estimated to be about 3.3billion troy ounces of PGMs. The world reserve

base is about 2.1 billion troy ounces, with theRepublic of South Africa controlling 90 percent ofthe reserves. Other major reserves are found in theU.S.S.R. and Canada, The United States has lessthan 10 percent of the world’s total PGM resources.

Domestic Production

Domestic firms produced approximately 5,000troy ounces of PGMs in 1986, all as byproductsfrom copper refining. The Republic of South Africaand the U.S. S. R. dominate world production ofPGMs; in 1986 South Africa’s mine production was4 million ounces and the Soviet Union’s was 3,7..—

7GIbid., p, 7.

million ounces of PGMs. Together they accountedfor 95 percent of world production. It is expectedthat existing world reserves will have no problemin meeting cumulative demand through 2000.


U.S. demand for PGMs in 2000 is expected to

be between 2 million ounces and 3.3 million ounces(table 3-1 1) with the probable demand at about 2.9million ounces. Domestic demand is forecast togrow at a rate of 2.5 percent annually between 1983and 2000. Demand in the rest of the world is ex-pected to increase more rapidly—perhaps 3 per-cent annually— due to the introduction of catalyticauto emission controls in Europe and Australia, andto the Japanese and U.S. emphasis on developingfuel cell technology as an alternative power source.

For most PGM end uses, the intensity of use hasdiminished since 1972.77 Although intensity of usehas declined, consumption has generally increasedas a result of the growth of the automotive, elec-tronic, and medical industries that consume plati-num, palladium, and iridium. Since 1982, inves-tors and speculators have been purchasing largequantities of platinum coins, bars, and ingots.

There are opportunities to reduce imports by im-proved recycling and substitution. About 97 per-cent of the PGMs used for petroleum refining and85 percent of the catalysts used for chemicals andpharmaceutical manufacturing are recycled. Auto-mobile catalysts are recycled much less frequently,

‘TDome~tjc Consumption Trends, 1972-82, and Forecasts to 199.?

for Twelt’e Major Metals, p. 96.

Table 3-11.– Forecast of Demand for Platinum-Group Metals in 2000

2000Material 1983 Low Probable High

(thousand troy ounces)Platinum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797 900 1,300 1,400Palladium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922 1,000 1,400 1,500Rhodium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 50 70 80Ruthenium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 140 210 230Iridium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 10 20Osmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 4

Total platinum-group . . . . . . 1,914 2,000a 2,900 3,300aTOtal differs from individual forecasts due to rounding.

SOURCE: J. Loebenste!n, “Platinum-Group Metals,” A4irreral Facts and Problems— 1985 (Washington, DC U.S Bureau of Mines,1966), p. 611.


but recycling could increase if PGM prices esca-late and if collection and waste disposal costs arereduced. It may be possible to reprocess as muchas 200,000 troy ounces of PGMs annually fromused automotive catalysts (about 3 percent of 1986U.S. consumption). 78 Recycling of electronic scrap

has collection and processing problems similar torecycling of automotive catalysts.

Substitution opportunities for PGMs in automo-tive catalysts are limited. Moreover, there is littleincentive to seek alternatives for catalysts in the pe-troleum industry because a high proportion ofPGMs used is currently recycled. Similarly, in thechemical and pharmaceutical industry, the valueof the product far exceeds the return on investmentfor developing non-PGM substitutes, which usu-ally are less efficient. It is possible to reduce theamount of PGMs used for electrical and electronicapplications by substituting gold and silver for plati-num and palladium.

Titanium (Ilmenite and Rutile)

Properties and Uses

Titanium is used as a metal and for pigments.Ninety-five percent of world production is used forwhite titanium dioxide pigment. Its high lightreflectivity makes the pigment valuable in paints,paper, plastics, and rubber products. About 65 per-cent of the titanium pigments used domestically arefor paint and paper.

Titanium alloys have a high strength-to-weightratio and high heat and corrosion resistance. They,therefore, are well-suited for high technology ap-plications, including high performance aircraft,electrical generation equipment, and chemical proc-essing and handling equipment.

Although only 5 percent of all titanium goes intometal, it is an important material for aircraft en-gines. About 63 percent of the titanium metal con-sumed in the United States in 1985 was for aero-space applications. The remaining 37 percent wasused in chemical processing, electric power gener-ation, marine applications, and steel and other al-loys. Titanium carbide is used in commercial cut-ting tools in combination with tungsten carbide.—.-—

Tap]at;num, MCP-ZZ (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines,1978), p. 13.

Organotitanium compounds are used as catalystsin polymerization processes, in water repellents,and in dyeing processes.

National Importance

Over 80 percent of the titanium materials usedin the United States are imported. The majorsources of U.S. raw material imports are Canadaand Australia. Other suppliers include the Republicof South Africa and Sierra Leone. The UnitedStates also imported about 5,500 tons of titaniummetal in 1984 (about 5 percent of consumption),mainly from Japan, Canada, and the United King-dom. Titanium’s importance to the military andto the domestic aerospace industry makes this metala second-tier strategic material (’strategic to somedegree’ with some small measure of potential sup-ply vulnerability.

79 The current National DefenseStockpile goal for titanium sponge is 195,000 tons,and the current inventory is about 26,000 tons. Thestockpile goal for rutile (used for metal productionas well as pigments) is 106,000 tons, with the cur-rent inventory at 39,186 tons.


The United States has reserves of about 7.9 mil-lion tons of titanium in the form of ilmenite and200,000 tons in the form of rutile, both locatedmainly in ancient beach sand deposits in Floridaand Tennessee and in ilmenite rock (table 3-12).The domestic reserve base of 23 million tons oftitanium contains 15.5 million tons of ilmenite, 6,5million tons of perovskite (not economically mina-ble), and 900,000 tons of rutile. Total resources (in-cluding reserves and reserve base) are about 103million tons of titanium dioxide, made up of 13 mil-lion tons of rutile, 30 million tons of ilmenite, 42million tons of low-titanium dioxide ilmenite, and18 million tons of perovskite.80 These resources in-clude large quantities of rutile at concentrations ofabout 0.3 percent in some porphyry copper oresand mill tailings .81

‘gOffice of Technology Assessment, Strategic Materials: Technol-ogies to Reduce U.S. Import Vulnerability, p. 52.

L70E. Force and L. Lynd, Titanium Mineral Resources of the United

States—Definitions and Documentation, Geological Survey Bulletin1558-B (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984),p. B-1.

8]E. Force, “Is the United States of America Geologically Depen-dent on Imported Rutile?, ” Proceedings of the 4th Industrial Min-erals International Congress, Atlanta, GA, 1980.


Table 3-12.—U.S. Titanium Reserves and Reserve Base

Reserves Reserve bsea

Ilmenite Rutile Total Ilmenite b Rutile Total

(thousand tons of contained titanium)Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 100 100California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — 400 400Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

—— — 6,500 — 6,500

Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000 200 5,200 5,400 200 5,600New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,700 — 2,700 5,300 — 5,300Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 10 210 3,700 600 4,300Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — 500 — 500

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,900 210 8,110 22,000 900 23,000aTh~ ~e~eWe base i“~j”d~~ &mOn~tr~ted ~e~~U~~eS that are currently economic resefves, marginally ecoflornic reserves, and Some that are Currefltty subeconomic

resources.bllmenite except for 6,5 million tons in Colorado perovskite.

SOURCE L. Lynd, “Titanium,” hfineral Facts and Prob/ems– 1985 Edition (Washington, DC: US. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 663.

Domestic Production

The United States is the world leader in titaniumpigment production, with 31 percent of the world’spigment capacity, far ahead of the Federal Republicof Germany in second place with 12 percent (fig-ure 3-6). There were 11 U.S. titanium pigmentplants operated by 5 firms in production in 1986.Their combined capacity was about 919,000 tonsof pigment per year. Production in 1986 was about917,000 tons, with nearly all of the plant capacitybeing utilized.

The United States accounts for about 25 percentof the world’s titanium sponge production capac-ity, third behind the U.S.S.R. (39 percent) and Ja-pan (28 percent). In 1985, total U.S. sponge ca-pacity was about 33,500 tons annually, the Sovietcapacity was about 53,000 tons, and the Japanese38,000 tons. U.S. production of sponge in 1985 wasabout 23,000 tons, indicating that domestic pro-ducers were then operating at about 70 percent ofcapacity.

When demand peaked in 1981 due to rapid in-creases in aerospace use, the U.S. consumed about32,000 tons of titanium metal. This surge in de-mand, which resulted in a temporary titaniumshortage, prompted both the United States and Ja-pan to increase their titanium metal production ca-pacity. However, in 1982 the recession and over-stocked inventories forced a cutback in spongeproduction in both countries to below 50 percentof capacity. Since then, the economic recovery andexpansion of the U.S. military and commercial airfleets has increased domestic demand for titanium

Figure 3-6.—World Titanium PigmentManufacturing Capacity

Titanium dioxide is the major form of titanium used in theUnited States. It is primarily used for manufacturing pigmentsfor paints and whiteners. The United States currently leadsthe world in pigment production.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

metal, but significant U.S. production capacity re-mains idle.

Production of titanium heavy minerals is drivenprimarily by demand for titanium dioxide pig-ments. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., theworld’s largest titanium dioxide producer, obtainsraw materials from its own mines in Florida andfrom a partially owned Australian subsidiary.

Currently, there are only two deposits produc-ing heavy minerals from titaneous sands in theUnited States. Both are in northeastern Florida,Trail deposit near Starke, Florida (du Pent), andthe Green Cove Springs deposit (Associated Min-erals (U.S.A.), Ltd. ) near the community of the


same name.82 The six U.S. titanium sponge pro-ducers import rutile, the raw material now used formetal production in the market economy coun-tries, 83 primarily from Australia, Sierra Leone, andthe Republic of South Africa. Associated Minerals(U.S.A.), Ltd., is the sole domestic producer ofnatural rutile concentrate, although Kerr-McGeeChemical Corp. produces about 100,000 tons ofsynthetic rutile84 from high-grade ilmenite throughthe removal of iron at its Mobile, Alabama, plant.


Projected total titanium demand in 2000 is esti-mated at 750,000 tons, an increase of 43 percentfrom 1983; however, demand could range from alow of 600,000 tons to a high of 1 million tons (ta-ble 3-1 3).85 The greatest percentage increase intitanium demand is expected to occur in the use-———

8ZW, HaNey and F, Brown, offshore Titanium Heavy MinerafPlacers: Processing and Related Considerations, ” OTA Contract Re-port, November 1986, p. 3.

asA]though the free market countries prefer to produce t Itaniummetal from rutile, the U. S.S. R and People’s Republic of China—which collectively produce 63 percent of the world titanium metal—manufacture metal from high-grade titanium oxide slag made fromilmenite. The process involves chlorination, purification, and reduc-tion of titanium chloride. The U.S. could probably also use the sameprocess to produce titanium metal feedstock, or synthetic rutile couldbe used,

84s nthetic ruti]e i5 often referred to in the trade as ‘‘ beneflciatedYilmenite. A natural analogue of this material is ‘‘Ieucoxene. S]ag-ging processes are also used elsewhere to produce high-titanium di-oxide, low-iron products from ilmenite.

BJA1though titanium demand is equated to e]ementtd titanium con-tent, the major proportion of domestic demand will be for titaniumdioxide.

of metals, which is projected to increase over five-fold, from 8,000 to 45,000 tons (this appears to bean optimistic estimate). Nevertheless, non-metaluses will continue to dominate the titanium mar-ket, probably approaching 700,000 tons by 2000,up from 515,000 tons in 1983.

In contrast, domestic titanium mine productionin 2000 is projected at about 210,000 tons, an an-nual growth rate of about 4.6 percent from the 1982level of 98,000 tons. Cumulative domestic mineproduction from the period 1983 to 2000 is pro-jected to be 2.6 million tons titanium, significantlyless than the probable cumulative primary non-metal demand of 10.5 million tons. Most of the fu-ture 7.9-million-ton shortfall is expected to be sup-plied by imports, even though domestic reservesof 7.8 million tons of ilmenite (contained titaniumequivalent) and 199,000 tons of rutile (containedtitanium equivalent) are considered sufficient tomeet about 80 percent of expected U.S. non-metaldemand in 2000.

Although a major proportion of future U.S. mineproduction is considered suitable for conversion tometal with intermediate processing,86 nearly all ofthe titanium concentrates used for domestic metalproduction are expected to come from cheaper im-

— -- —scTheSe include intermediate products such as synthetic IUtde an~or

high-titanium slags. Such slags have been made from American ores.See G Elger, J. Wright, J. Tress, et al., Producing Ch]orination-Grade Feedstock fmm Domestic 1lmenite—LaboratoV and Pilot PlantStudies, RI-9002 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1985),p. 24.

Table 3.13.—Forecast for U.S. Titanium Demand in 2000

2000End use 1983 Low Probable High

(thousand tons contained titanium)Nonmetal:

Paints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 270 320 400Paper products . . . . . . . . . . . 137 160 200 280Plastics and synthetics . . . . 66 80 100 140Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 57 85 116

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 570 700 940

Metal:Aerospace , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 15 23 29Industrial equipment . . . . . . 2 7 13 20Steel and alloys . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 9 13

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 27 45 62

Grand total. . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 600 750 1,000SOURCE: L. Lynd, “Titanium,” Mineral Facts and Prob/erns– 1985 Edition (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1988), p. 875.


ports. U.S. ilmenite reserves that could be used formetal production are estimated to contain about10 times the probable forecast of metal cumulativedemand of 490,000 tons by 2000.

Titanium Metal. —Titanium is one of onlythree metals expected to increase significantly inconsumption and intensity of use; its demand isclosely related to requirements for the constructionof military and civilian aircraft. The outlook fortitanium mill products through 1990 will dependprimarily on military aircraft procurement and onthe rate at which commercial air carriers replaceaging fleets. The intensity of use (ratio of use toshipments) in the aerospace industry remained un-changed during the period 1972 to 1982. It is ex-pected that significant replacement of titanium bycarbon-epoxy composite materials-titanium’s ma-jor competitor for lightweight, high-strength air-craft construction—will not occur before at least1994. Titanium can be effectively used in conjunc-tion with composite materials because their coeffi-cients of thermal expansion match closely. Selec-tion of titanium alloys over other materials foraerospace applications generally is based on eco-nomics and their special properties.

Because of its corrosion resistance and high-strength, titanium is likely to be increasingly usedin industrial processes involving corrosive environ-ments, although price has been somewhat of a de-terrent to expanded commercial use. Non-aircraftindustrial demand is currently showing stronggrowth in intensity of use of titanium. Automotiveuses may also increase in the future. Currently,however, the use of titanium metal represents arelatively small amount of materials, and titaniumdioxide for use in pigments and chemicals remainsthe major use in the United States.

Titanium Pigments.—Demand for paint pig-ments is projected to increase from 246,000 tonsof titanium in 1983 to a probable level of 320,000tons of titanium by 2000, but may range as low as270,000 tons or as high as 400,000 tons. By 2000,metal and wood products precoated with durableplastic or ceramic finishes could be used in the con-struction industry, which would reduce or elimi-nate the need for repainting, thus adversely affect-ing demand growth of conventional coatings.

Paper products are projected to consume about200,000 tons of titanium by 2000, up from 137,000tons in 1983. The United States is the world’slargest producer of paper, accounting for 35 per-cent of total world supply. The industry seems as-sured of continued growth, which should also bereflected in increased demand for titanium pig-ment. 87

Some substitution by alternative whiteners andcoloring agents may be developed in the futurewhich could slightly offset growth of titanium pig-ment usage, but it is projected that total pigmentconsumption will probably reach 640,000 tons oftitanium by 2000.

Because production of titanium dioxide pigmentby the chloride process results in fewer environ-mental problems than does the sulfate process, fu-ture trends are likely to be toward the developmentof concentrates that are suited as chlorination feedmaterials and for making metals. Future commer-cial applications for utilizing domestic ilmenite toproduce high-titanium dioxide concentrates mayhave the potential to make the United States self-sufficient in supplying its titanium requirements,should they prove economically competitive. Tech-nically, such concentrates can be produced fromrutile, high-titanium dioxide ilmenite sands, leu-coxene, synthetic rutile, and low-magnesium, low-calcium titaniferous slags. Perovskite found inColorado also might be convertible to synthetic ru-tile or titanium dioxide pigment.

Phosphate Rock (Phosphorite)

Properties and Uses

Over 90 percent of the phosphate rock (a sedi-mentary rock composed chiefly of phosphate min-erals) mined in the United States is used for agri-cultural fertilizers. Most of the balance of phosphateconsumed domestically is used to produce sodiumtripolyphosphate —a major constituent of householdlaundry detergents—and other sodium phosphatesthat are used in cleaners, water treatment, andfoods. Phosphoric acid is also used in the manu-

t37u s Depar tment of C o m m e r c e , f 986 ~“. S. ~ndustr;af ~ut~oo~

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986), p. 5-5.


facture of calcium phosphates for animal feeds, den-tifrices, food additives, and baking powder. Tech-nical grades of phosphoric acid are used for cleaningmetals and lubricants. Food-grade phosphoric acidis used as a preservative in processed foods.

National Importance

There is no substitute for phosphorus in agricul-tural uses; however, its use in detergents has beenreduced by the substitution of other compounds toreduce environmental damage in lakes and streamspartially caused by phosphorus enrichment (eutro-phication).

The United States leads the world in phosphaterock production (table 3-14), but it is likely to bechallenged by Morocco as the world’s largest pro-ducer in future years. Domestic production sup-plies nearly all of the phosphorus used in the UnitedStates, except for a small amount of low-fluorinephosphate rock imported from Mexico and theNetherlands Antilles and high-quality phosphaterock for liquid fertilizers from Togo. The UnitedStates is currently a major exporter of phosphaterock and phosphate chemicals but is facing in-creased price competition from foreign sources (fig-ure 3-7). Producers in the Middle East and NorthAfrica may continue to encroach on U.S. exportmarkets as new phosphorus fertilizer plants beginoperation and U.S. production continues to shutdown.

Table 3-14.—World and U.S. PhosphateRock Production

World U s . Us.Year Production Production production

(million tons)1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 521978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 551979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 571980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 601981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 601982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 411983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 471984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 541985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 561986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 44

(percent)41403934373032323329

SOURCE: Adapted from W. Stowasser and R. Fantel, “The Outlook for the UnitedStates Phosphate Rock Industry and its Place In the World,” Societyof Mining Engineers of AlME, Society of Mining Engineers, Inc., Reprint65-116, 1965.

Figure 3.7.—Major World Exporters of Phosphate RockSince 1975, With Projections to 1995

1970 75 80 85 90 95Year

The United States is currently a major exporter of phosphaterock and phosphate chemicals but is facing increased pricecompetition from foreign sources, principally Morocco.Domestic mines are shutting down, and some analysts be-lieve that the U.S. industry is in danger of collapsing in thefuture.

SOURCE: W. Laver, ‘“Phosphate Rock: Regional Supply and Changing Patternof World Trade,” TransactIons of the Irrstltutlon of Mining and Meta/-Iurgy, Sec. A–Mining Industry, July 1966, Transactions Vol. 95, p. Al 19.


Phosphorus-rich deposits occur throughout theworld, but only a small proportion are of commer-cial grade. Igneous phosphate rock (apatites) arealso commercially important in some parts of theworld. Commercial deposits in the United Statesare all marine phosphorites that were formed un-der warm, tropical conditions in shallow plateauareas where upwelling water could collect. U.S.phosphate rock reserves are estimated to be 1.3 bil-lion tons at costs of less than $32 per ton.88 Thereserve base is about 5.8 billion tons (at costs rang-ing from less than $18 per ton to $91 per ton), withtotal resources estimated at 6.9 billion tons, Over70 percent of the U.S. reserve base is located inFlorida and North Carolina. There are also largephosphate deposits in some Western States.

Although the United States has potentially vastinferred and hypothetical resources (7 billion tonsand 24 billion tons of phosphate rock respectively),economic production thresholds for these resourceshave not been calculated. Other deposits probably

68W. Stowasser and R. Fantel, “The Outlook for the United StatesPhosphate Rock Industry and its Place in the World, paper presentedat the SME-AIME Annual Meeting, New York, NY, Feb. 24-28,1985, Society of Mining Engineers Reprint No. 85-116, p. 5.


will likely be discovered. Deep phosphate rock de-posits may also hold promise if economically accept-able means for recovering them without excessivesurface disturbance can be developed. Hydraulicborehole technology may be adapted for this pur-pose, but very little is known about its economicfeasibility and environmental acceptability .89

The United States is a distant second in worlddemonstrated phosphate resources (19 percent) be-hind Morocco, whose enormous resources accountfor over 56 percent of the total demonstrated re-sources of the market economy countries, theU.S.S.R, and the Federal Republic of China90 (ta-ble 3-1 5). Morocco alone may have sufficient re-sources to supply world demand far into the fu-ture.91

Domestic Production

The United States produced 44 million tons ofphosphate rock in 1986, which accounted for aboutone-third of total world production. U.S. produc-tion of rock phosphate peaked in 1980-81 at approx-imately 60 million tons each year, 92 Twenty-threedomestic companies were mining phosphate rockin 1986, with an aggregate capacity of about 66 mil-lion tons. Of the domestic phosphate rock that wasmined in 1984, 84 percent came from Florida andNorth Carolina.

The domestic phosphate industry is vertically in-tegrated and highly concentrated .93 Most of thephosphate rock produced in the United States isused to manufacture wet-process phosphoric acid,which is produced by digestion with sulfuric acid.Elemental phosphorus is produced by reducingphosphate rock in an electric furnace. About halfthe elemental phosphorus produced is converted tosodium tripolyphosphate for use in detergents.

89J. Hrabik and D. Godesky, Economic Evaluation of Borehole andConventional Mining Systems in Phosphate Deposits, IC 8929 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1983), p. 34.

90R, Fante], G, Peterson, and W. Stowasser, ‘ ‘The WorldwideAvailability of Phosphate Rock, Naturaf Resources Forum VO1. 9,

No. 1 (New York, NY: United Nations, 1985), pp. 5-23.g] R, Fantel, T. Anstett, G, Peterson, et al. , Phosphate ROC~

Availability— World, IC 8989 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau ofMines, 1984), p. 12.

‘2W. Stowasser, “Phosphate Rock, ” Mineral Commodity Sum-maries—1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 116.

9JR, Fante], D. Su]livan, and G, Peterson, Phosphate Rock Avail-

ability-Domestic, IC 8937 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of hlines,1983), p. 5.

Table 3-15.—World Phosphate Rock Reservesand Reserve Base

Reserves a Reserve baseb

(million tons)North America:

United States . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 5,951Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 6,127

South America:Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 386Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 650

Europe:U. S.S.R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,433 1,433Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,433 1,587

Africa:Algeria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871Morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,604 22,040Western Sahara . . . . . . . . 937 937South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . 2,865 2,865Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 231

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,670 27,220

Asia:China. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 231Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 562Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 485

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 1,449

Oceania:Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551Nauru. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 561

World total . . . . . . . . 15,119 37,594acost less ttlarr $32 per ton. Cost includes capital, oPerating exPenses, etc. and

a 15 percent rate of return on investment. Costs and resources as of January1983, f.o.b. mine.

bcost tess than $91 per ton.

SOURCE: Adapted from W. Stowasser, “Phosphate Rock,” Mlnera/ Facts andProb/ems– 1985 .Editlorr (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986),p. 582.


Demand for phosphate rock is closely linked toagricultural production. Domestic primary demandfor phosphate rock (including exports) grew from31.2 million tons in 1973 to 45 million tons in 1980.The global recession that followed, coupled withagricultural drought conditions and governmentagricultural policies aimed at reducing excessive do-mestic grain inventories, reduced phosphate rockconsumption to 31.7 million tons in 1982. Domesticconsumption rebounded in 1984 to 46 million tons


as the world economy improved and U.S. grainproduction increased. 94 But depressed agriculturalprices and increased operating costs have tendedto stabilize demand growth as domestic farmerscontinue to struggle with the cost-price squeeze.

Probable domestic demand for phosphate rockis projected to be 52 million tons by 2000, with thelow forecast at 50 million tons and the high at 55million tons (table 3-1 6).95 However, these forecastsare very uncertain due to global changes takingplace in agricultural production. End uses in 2000are expected to remain in about the same propor-tion as current uses.

From the mid-1970s, when exports representedabout 40 percent of domestic production, theproportion of exported phosphate rock, fertilizers,and chemicals increased slowly through 1982 butdecreased to its 10-year low by 1985. In 1983, fer-tilizer and chemicals slightly exceeded phosphaterock as export commodities (in terms of containedphosphorus pentoxide).96

Competition for international market share is ex-pected to increase. Economics favors the conver-sion of phosphate rock to higher valued chemicalsand fertilizers for export. There is currently a trendin phosphate rock producing countries to expandfacilities for processing raw material into intermedi-ate or finished products, particularly among Mid-dle Eastern and North African nations.

The U.S. share of world markets is expected tocontinue to decline in the future. Probable annualgrowth rate for phosphate fertilizer exports through

“W. Stowasser, “Phosphate Rock, ” Mineral Facts and Problems—1985 Edition, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines,1986), p. 585.

95 Stowasser, “Phosphate Rock, ” Mineral Facts and Problems—1985 Edition, p. 591.

9’Stowasser and Fantel, “The Outlook for the United States Phos-phate Rock Industry, ” pp. 85-116.

2000 is forecast to be 2 percent, with a low of 1.5and a high of 3 percent. 97 Exports of phosphate rockare projected to decline at an annual rate of about1 percent through 2000. In summary, the annualgrowth rate is expected to approach 0.8 percentfrom 1983 through 2000.

Future export levels of phosphate rock and phos-phate fertilizer will be largely determined by theavailability of resources from Florida and NorthCarolina, competition from foreign producers, andan increase in international trade of phosphoric acidrather than phosphate rock. U.S. phosphate rocksupply is likely to be sufficient to meet demandthrough 1995, but demand could exceed domesticsupply by 2000 if U.S. producers reduce domesticcapacity as a result of foreign competition.

In addition to the domestic industry’s problemswith foreign competition and diminishing ore qual-ity and quantity, problems associated with the envi-ronment affect phosphate rock mining and benefic-iation. Environmental concerns include disposingof waste clay (slimes) produced from the benefici-ation of phosphate ores, disposing of phosphogyp-sum from acid plants, developing acceptable recla-mation procedures for disturbed wetlands, andoperating with reduced water consumption.

Industry analysts think the phosphate industry’sproblems will grow with time. It is likely that theprice will not increase enough to justify mininghigher-cost deposits, and that the public will con-tinue to oppose phosphate mining and manufac-turing phosphatic chemicals. In that event, the re-maining low-cost, high-quality deposits willcontinue to satisfy demand until they are exhaustedor until the markets for phosphate rock or fertilizerbecome unprofitable. If domestic phosphate rock

‘7 Stclwasser, ‘ ‘Phosphate Rock, ” Mineraf Facts and Problems—1985 Edition, p. 590.

Table 3-16.– Forecasts of U.S. and World Phosphate Rock Demand in 2000


(million tons) (percent)United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44a 50 50 60 1.8Rest of world. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 220 220 230 4.2World total ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 270 290 3.6au,s, data for 19M, frOtTI w. stowasser, “Phosphate Rock,” Mh?eml Corrrrrrodity Summar/es— 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), p. 116.

SOURCE: Adapted from W. Stowasser, “Phosphate Rock,” A4irteral Facts and Prob/ems– 1985 .Editlorr (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1966), p 592.


production costs continue to rise and investmentin new mines is not justified, the shortfall betweendomestic supply and domestic demand will haveto come from imports of lower-cost phosphaterock. 98

Sand and Gravel

Properties and Uses

Sand and gravel is a nationally used commoditywhich is an important element in many U.S. in-dustries and is used in enormous quantities. Sandand gravel can be used for industrial purposes suchas in foundary operations, in glass manufacturing,as abrasives, and in infiltration beds of water treat-ment facilities.

Most sand and gravel, however, is used in con-struction. Much of the aggregate is used in con-crete for residential housing, commercial buildings,bridges and dams, and in concrete or bituminousmixes for highway construction. A large percent-age of sand and gravel is also used without bindersas road bases, as road coverings, and in railroadballast.

National Importance

Generally, there is an abundance of sand andgravel in the United States. Even though these ma-terials are widely distributed, they are not univer-sally available for consumptive use. Some areas aredevoid of sand and gravel or may be covered withsufficient material to make surface mining imprac-tical. In some areas, many sand and gravel sourcesdo not meet toughness, strength, durability, orother physical property requirements for certainuses. Similarly, many sources may contain mineralconstituents that react adversely when used as con-crete aggregate. Furthermore, even though an areamay be endowed with an abundance of sand andgravel suitable for the intended purpose, existingland uses, zoning, or regulations may precludecommercial exploitation of the aggregate.


Sand and gravel resources are so extensive thatresource estimates of total reserves are probably not

‘* Ibid., p. 593.

obtainable. Mineable resources occur both onshoreand in coastal waters. Large offshore deposits havebeen located in the Atlantic continental shelf andoffshore Alaska. 99 The availability of constructionsand and gravel is controlled largely by land useand/or environmental constraints. Local shortagesof sand and gravel are becoming common, espe-cially near large metropolitan areas, and thereforeonshore resources may not meet future demand.Crushed stone is being used often as a substitute,despite its higher price.

Domestic Production

In 1986, about 837 million tons of constructionsand and gravel were produced in the UnitedStates, industrial sand and gravel production ap-proached 28.5 million tons100 and about 2.5 mil-lion tons of construction and industrial sand andgravel were exported.

101 The domestic industry ismade up of many producers ranging widely in size.Most produce materials for the local market. Thewestern region led production and consumption ofsand and gravel, followed by the east north-central,mountain, and southern regions.


Demand forecasts for U.S. construction sand andgravel for 2000 range between a low of 650 mil-lion tons and a high of 1.2 billion tons, with thedemand probably about 1 billion tons. Average an-nual growth in demand is expected to be about 2.9percent annually through 2000. 102 Apparent con-sumption in 1986 was about 836 million tons.

Offshore resources may find future markets incertain urban areas where demand might outpaceonshore supply because of scarcity or limited pro-duction due to land use or environmental con-

99J. Williams, “Sand and Gravel Deposits Within the United StatesExclusive Economic Zone: Resource Assessment and Uses, OTC5197, Proceedings of the 18th Annual Offshore Technology Confer-ence, Houston, Texas, May 5-8, 1986, p. 377.

‘ OOV. Tepordei, “Sand and Gravel, ” Minera) Comtnodity Sum-maries— 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of M incs, 1985 ), pp.

136-137.101 v, Tepordei and L, Davis, ‘‘ Sand and Gravel, Minerafs Year-

book—1984 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1985), p. 775.‘02V. Tepordei, “Sand and Grave l,” Miner-al Facts and Problems-

198.5 Edi[ion, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: L’. S. Bureau of Mines,1986), p. 695.


straints. Such areas include New York, Boston, LosAngeles, San Francisco, San Juan, and Honolulu.

Garnet

Garnet is an iron-aluminum silicate used forhigh-quality abrasives and as filter media. Its sizeand shape in its natural form is important in de-termining its industrial use. The United States isthe dominant world producer and user of garnet,accounting for about 75 percent of the world’s out-put and 70 percent of its consumption. In 1986,the U.S. produced about 35,000 tons of garnet andconsumed about 28,000 tons. 103 Domestic demandis expected to rise only modestly to about 38,000tons per year by 2000.104 World resources are verylarge and distributed widely among nations.

Monazite

Monazite is a rare-earth and thorium mineralfound in association with heavy mineral sands. Itis recovered mainly as a byproduct of processingtitanium and zirconium minerals, principally inAustralia and India. Domestic production ofmonazite is small relative, to demand. As a result,the United States imports monazite concentratesand intermediates, primarily for their rare-earthcontent.

The rare earths are used domestically in a widevariety of end uses including: petroleum fluid crack-ing catalysts, metallurgical applications in high-strength low-alloy steels, phosphors used in colortelevision and color computer displays, high-strength permanent magnets, laser crystals for high-energy applications such as fusion research and spe-cial underwater-to-surface communications, elec-tronic components, high-tech ceramics, fiber-optics,and superconductors. It is estimated that about15,400 tons of equivalent rare-earth oxides wereconsumed domestically in 1986.105

Substitutes for the rare earths are available formany applications, but are usually much less ef-fective. The United States imported 3,262 tons ofmonazite concentrates in 1986, representing about12 percent of the total estimated domestic consump-tion of equivalent rare-earth oxides.

World resources of the rare-earth elements arelarge, and critical shortages of most of the elementsare not likely to occur. Because domestic demandfor thorium is small, only a small amount of thethorium available in monazite is recovered. It isused in aerospace alloys, lamp mantles, weldingelectrodes, high-temperature refractory applica-tions, and nuclear fuel.

Zircon

Zircon is recovered as a byproduct from the ex-traction of titanium minerals from titaneous sands.Zirconium metal is used as fuel cladding and struc-tural material in nuclear reactors and for chemicalprocessing equipment because of its resistance tocorrosion. Ferrozirconium; zircon and zirconiumoxide, is used in abrasives, refractories, and cer-amics. Zircon is produced in the United States withabout 40 to 50 percent of consumption importedfrom Australia, South Africa, and France.

Domestic consumption of contained zirconiumwas about 50,000 tons in 1983. 106 The United Statesis estimated to have about 14 million tons of zir-con, primarily associated with titaneous sand de-posits. It is expected that domestic contained zir-conium demand may reach about 116,000 tons by2000, an annual growth of nearly 6 percent. Sub-stitutes for zirconium are available, but at a sacri-fice in effectiveness. Domestic reserves are gaugedto be adequate for some time in the future althoughthe United States imports much of that consumedfrom cheaper sources.

’03G. Austin, “Garnet, Industrial, ” Mineral Commodity Sum-maries—1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 56.

‘“’J. Smoak, “Garnet,” Mineral Facts and Problems—1985 Edi-tion, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986),p. 297.

105J. Hedrick, ‘ ‘Rare-Earth Metals, Mineral Commodity Sum-maries—J987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1986), p. 126.

locw. Adams, “Zirconium and Hafnium, ” Minera) Facts ~d Prob-fems—f985 Edition, Bulletin 675 (Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau ofMines, 1986), p. 941.

Chapter 4

Technologies for Exploring theExclusive Economic Zone

CONTENTS

PageIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Reconnaissance Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........119

Side-Looking Sonars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................119Bathymetric Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........,124Reflection and Refraction Seismology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...132Magnetic Methods.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................136Gravity Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................138

Site-Specific Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............139Electrical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................139Geochemical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................143Manned Submersibles and Remotely Operated Vehicles . ...................145Optical Imaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................152Direct Sampling by Coring, Drilling, and Dredging . . . . ....................154

Navigation Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............162


4-1. USGS Research Vessel S.P. Lee and EEZ Exploration Technologies. .. ....1174-2. GLORIA Long-Range Side-Looking Sonar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1214-3. SeaMARC CL Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............1254-4. Multi-Beam Bathymetry Products . . . . . . . . . . ..............,............1264-5. Sea Beam Beam Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............1274-6. Operating Costs for Some Bathymetry and Side-Looking Sonar Systems ...1294-7. Comparing SeaMARC and Sea Beam Swath Widths . ...............,...1304-8. Frequency Spectra of Various Acoustic Imaging Methods . ...............1334-9. Seismic Reflection and Refraction Principles . ..........................134

4-10. Seismic Record With Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...1354-11. Conceptual Design of the Towed-Cable-Array Induced Polarization System .1424-12. A Tethered, Free-Swimming Remotely Operated Vehicle System. ..,..... .1474-13. Schematic of the Argo-Jason Deep-Sea Photographic System . . . . . . . . . .. ...1534-14. Prototype Crust Sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............1594-15. Conceptual Design for Deep Ocean Rock Coring Drill. . .................162

TablesTable No. Page4-1. Closing Range to a Mineral Deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...1164-2. Side-Looking Sonars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................,.1204-3. Swath Mapping Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............1234-4. Bathymetry Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................1274-5. U.S. Non-Government Submersibles (Manned) . . . . . . . . ..................1454-6. Federally Owned and Operated Submersibles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...1464-7. U.S. Government Supported ROVs. . . . . . . . . . . . ........................1464-8. Worldwide Towed Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ............1504-9. Vibracore Sampling Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............155

Chapter 4

Technologies for Exploring theExclusive Economic Zone

INTRODUCTION

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is thelargest piece of “real estate” to come under thejurisdiction of the United States since acquisitionsof the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the purchaseof Alaska in 1867. The EEZ remains largely un-explored, both in the Lewis and Clark sense of gain-ing general knowledge of a vast new territory andin the more detailed sense of assessing the location,quantity, grade, or recoverability of resources. Thischapter identifies and describes technologies for ex-ploring this vast area, assesses current capabilitiesand limitations of these technologies, and identi-fies future technology needs.

The goal of mineral exploration is to locate, iden-tify, and quantify mineral deposits, either for sci-entific purposes (e. g., better understanding theirorigin) or for potential commercial exploitation.Detailed sampling of promising sites is necessaryto prove the commercial value of deposits. Obvi-ously, it would be impractical and costly to sam-ple the entire EEZ in the detail required to assessthe commercial viability of a mineral deposit. For-tunately, this is not necessary as techniques otherthan direct sampling can provide many indirectclues that help researchers or mining prospectorsnarrow the search area to the most promising sites.

Clues to the location of potential offshore mineralaccumulations can be found even before going tosea to search for them. The initial requirements ofan exploration program for the EEZ are a thoroughunderstanding of its geological framework and ofthe geology of adjacent coastal areas. In some in-stances, knowledge of onshore geology may leaddirectly to discoveries in adjacent offshore areas.For example, a great deal is currently known aboutthe factors responsible for the formation of offshoreheavy mineral deposits and gold placers. These fac-tors include onshore sources of the minerals, trans-port paths, processes of concentration, and pres-

ervation of the resulting deposit. 1 In contrast,relatively little is known about the genesis of co-balt crusts or massive sulfides. Although a thoroughunderstanding of known geology and current geo-logical theory may not lead directly to a commer-cial discovery, some knowledge is indispensable fordevising an appropriate offshore explorationstrategy.

Rona and others have used the concept of ‘clos-ing range to a mineral deposit’ to describe an ex-ploration strategy for hydrothermal mineral depos-its.2 With some minor modifications this strategymay be applicable for exploration of many typesof offshore mineral accumulations. It is analogousto the use of a zoom lens on a camera which firstshows a large area with little detail but then is ad-justed for a closeup view to reveal greater detail ina much smaller area. The strategy of closing rangebegins with regional reconnaissance. Reconnais-sance technologies are used to gather informationabout the ‘‘big picture. While none of these tech-niques can provide direct confirmation of the ex-istence, size, or nature of specific mineral depos-its, they can be powerful tools for deducing likelyplaces to focus more attention. As knowledge is ac-quired, exploration proceeds toward increasinglymore focused efforts (see table 4-1), and the explo-ration technologies used have increasingly specificapplications. Technologies that provide detailed in-formation can be used more efficiently once recon-naissance techniques have identified the promising

‘H. E, Clifton and G. Luepke, “Heavy Mineral Placer Depositsof the Continental Margin of Alaska and the Pacific Coast States,Geology and Resource Potential of the Continental Margin of West-ern North America and AdJ”acent Ocean Basins—Beaufort Sea to BaJ’aCalifornia, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir43, in press, 1986, p. 2 (draft).

‘P. A. Rona, ‘ ‘Exploration for Hydrothermal Mineral Deposits atSeafloor Spreading Centers, Marine Mining, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1983,pp. 20-26.

115


Table 4-1.—Closing Range to a Mineral Deposit

Approximaterange to deposit Method

10 kilometers . . . . Long-range side-looking sonarRegional sediment and water sampling

1 kilometer . . . . . . Gravity techniquesMagnetic techniquesBathymetryMidrange side-looking sonarSeismic techniques

100 meters. . . . . . . Electrical techniquesNuclear techniquesShort-range side-looking sonar

10 meters. . . . . . . . Near-bottom water samplingBottom images

0 meter. . . . . . . . . .Coring, drilling, dredgingSubmersible applications

SOURCE: Adapted from P.A. Rona, “Exploration for Hydrothermal MineralDeposits at Seafloor Spreading Centers,” Marine Mining, vol. 4 No.1, 1963, pp. 20-26.

areas. Systematic exploration does not necessarilymean comprehensive exploration of each acre ofthe EEZ.

Accurate information about seafloor topographyis a prerequisite for detailed exploration. Side-looking sonar imaging and bathymetric mappingprovide indispensable reconnaissance information.Side-looking sonar provides an image of the seafloorsimilar to that provided by aerial radar imagery.Its use has already resulted in significant new dis-coveries of subsea geological features within theU.S. EEZ. By examining side-looking sonar im-ages, scientists can decide where to focus moredetailed efforts and plan a more detailed explora-tion strategy.

Long-range side-looking sonar (e. g., GLORIAor SeaMARC II, described below) may show pat-terns indicating large seabed structures. At some-what closer range, a number of other reconnais-sance technologies (figure 4-1) may provide moredetailed textural and structural data about theseabed that can be used to narrow further the fo-cus of a search to a specific mineral target.


USGS S.P. Lee

j j j j

j j j

j j j j

j j j

j j j

j j j j

j j

j j j

j j j

j j j

j

j

j

j j

j

j j j

j j

j j

j

j

I

j


●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Bathymetric profiling yields detailed informa-tion about water depth, and hence, of seabedmorphology.Midrange side-looking sonars provide acous-tic images similar to long-range sonars, butof higher resolution.Seismic reflection and refraction techniques ac-quire information about the subsurface struc-ture of the seabed.Magnetic profiling is used to detect and char-acterize the magnetic field. Magnetic traversesmay be used offshore to map sediments androcks containing magnetite and other iron-richminerals.Gravity surveys are used to detect differencesin the density of rocks, leading to estimates ofcrustal rock types and thicknesses.Electrical techniques are used to study resis-tivity, conductivity, electrochemical activity,and other electrical properties of rocks.Nuclear techniques furnish information aboutthe radioactive properties of some rocks.

Many of these reconnaissance technologies arealso useful for more detailed studies of the seabed.Most are towed through the water at speeds of from1 to 10 knots. Hence, much information may begathered in relatively short periods of time. It isoften possible to use more than one sensor at a time,thereby increasing exploration efficiency. Data setscan be integrated, such that the combined data aremuch more useful than information from any onesensor alone. Generally, the major cost of offshorereconnaissance is not the sensor itself, but the useof the ship on which it is mounted.

At still closer ranges, several other remote sens-ing techniques and technologies become useful.Short-range, higher frequency side-looking sonarsprovide very high resolution of seafloor features ata range of 100 meters (328 feet)3 and less. At lessthan about 50 meters in clear water, visual imag-ing is often used. Photographs or videotapes maybe taken with cameras mounted on towed or low-

3Many geophysical and geological measurements are commonly ex-pressed in metric units. This convention will be retained in this chapter.For selected measures, units in both metric and English systems willbe given.

ered platforms or on either unmanned or mannedsubmersibles. Instruments for sampling the chem-ical properties and temperature of near-bottomwater also may be carried aboard these platforms.

Indirect methods of detection give way to directmethods at the seabed. Only direct samples can pro-vide information about the constituents of a deposit,their relative abundance, concentration, grain size,etc. Grab sampling, dredging, coring, and drillingtechniques have been developed to sample seabeddeposits, although technology for sampling consoli-dated deposits lags behind that for sampling un-consolidated sediments. If initial sampling of adeposit is promising, a more detailed sampling pro-gram may be carried out. In order to prove thecommercial value of a mineral occurrence, it maybe necessary to take thousands of samples.

While some technology has been specifically de-signed for minerals exploration, much technologyuseful for this purpose has been borrowed fromtechnology originally designed for other purposes.Some of the most sophisticated methods availablefor exploration were developed initially for militarypurposes. For instance, development of multi-beambathymetric systems by the U.S. Navy has provenuseful for civilian charting, oceanographic research,and marine minerals exploration. Much technol-ogy developed for military purposes is not imme-diately available for civilian uses. Some technol-ogies developed by the scientific community foroceanographic research are also useful for mineralsexploration.

Advances in technology usually generate inter-est in finding applications to practical problems.It is often costly to adapt technology for marine use.When the military defines a need, the cost of de-velopment of new technology is commonly less con-strained than may be the case for the civilian sec-tor. Conversely, although certain explorationtechniques (e. g., for sampling polymetallic sulfides)are not yet very advanced, it does not necessarilyfollow that the technical problems in research anddevelopment are overwhelming. Identification ofthe need for new technology may be recent, and/orthe urgency to develop the technology, which mightbe high for military use, may be relatively low forcivilian use.

Ch. 4—Technologies for Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone ● 119

RECONNAISSANCE

Side-Looking Sonars

Side-looking sonars are used for obtaining acous-tic images of the ocean bottom. Most side-lookingsonars use ship-towed transducers which transmitsound through the water column to the seafloor.The sound is reflected from the seabed and returnedto the transducer. Modern side-looking sonarsmeasure both echo-time and backscatter intensity.As the ship moves forward, successive sound pulsesare transmitted, received, and digitally recorded.Side-looking sonars were originally designed foranalog operation (i. e., for producing a physicaltrace of the returned echo), but most now use dig-ital methods to facilitate image processing. The dataare usually processed to correct for variations inthe ship’s speed, slant-range distance to the seafloor,and attenuation of sound in the water. The finalproduct is a sonograph, or acoustic image, of theocean floor. It is also possible to extract informa-tion about the texture of some seabed deposits fromthe sonar signal. Side-looking sonars useful for EEZexploration are of three types:

1. long-range (capable of mapping swaths 10 to60 kilometers wide),

2. mid range (1 to 10 kilometers swaths), and3. short range ( <1 kilometer swaths).4

Table 4-2 displays characteristics of several side-looking sonars.

Long-Range Side-Looking Sonar

One of the few technologies used to date to in-vestigate large portions of the U.S. EEZ is a long-range side-looking sonar known as GLORIA (Geo-logical LOng Range Inclined Asdic) (figure 4-2).GLORIA was designed by the Institute of Oceano-graphic Sciences (IOS) in the United Kingdom andis being used by the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) for obtaining acoustic images of the U.S.EEZ beyond the continental shelf. 5 When proc-

4P. R, Vogt and B. E. Tucholke (eds. ) ‘‘Imaging the Ocean Floor—History and State of the Art, ‘‘ in The Geology of North America,Volume M, The Western North Atlantic Region (Boulder, CO: Geo-logical Society of America, 1986), p. 33.

5EEZ Scan 1984 Scientific Staff, Adas of the ExcJusi}’e EconomicZone, Western Conterminous United States, U.S. Geological Sur-vey Miscellaneous Investigations Series 1-1792, Scale 1 :500,000, 1986.

TECHNOLOGIES

essed, GLORIA images are similar to slant-rangeradar images. GLORIA’s main contribution is thatit gives geologists a valuable first look at expansesof the seafloor and enables them to gain insightabout seabed structure and geology. For instance,the orientation and extent of large linear featuressuch as ridges, bedforms, channels, and fracturezones can be determined.6 Horizontal separationsas little as 45 meters (148 feet) and vertical distanceson the order of a few meters can be resolved.

USGS is using GLORIA to survey the EEZ rela-tively inexpensively and quickly. GLORIA can sur-vey swaths of seabed as wide as 60 kilometers (al-though, in practice, a 45-kilometer swath width isused to improve resolution). When towed 50 metersbeneath the sea surface at 8 to 10 knots and set toilluminate a 60-kilometer swath, GLORIA is ca-pable of surveying as much as 27,000 square kilom-eters (about 8,300 square nautical miles) of theseafloor per day. It is less efficient in shallow water,since swath width is a function of water depth be-low the sonar, increasing as depth increases.GLORIA can survey to the outer edge of the EEZin very deep water.

Processing and enhancement of digital GLORIAdata are accomplished using the Mini-Image Proc-essing System (MIPS) developed by USGS.7 MIPSis able to geometrically and radiometrically correctthe original data, as well as enhance, display, andcombine the data with other data types. In addi-tion, the system can produce derivative products,all on a relatively inexpensive minicomputer sys-tem. 8 It is also possible now to vary the scale andprojection of the data without having to do muchmanual manipulation.

‘R. W. Rowland, M. R. Goud, and B.A. McGregor, ‘‘The U.S.Exclusive Economic Zone—A Summary of Its Geology, Exploration,and Resource Potential, U.S. Geological Survey, Geological Cir-cular 912, 1983, p. 1 6 .

7P. S. Chavez, “Processing Techniques for Digital Sonar ImagesFrom GLORIA, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sens-

ing, vol. 52, No. 8, 1986, pp. 1133-1145.8G. W. Hill, ‘‘U.S. Geological Survey Plans for Mapping the Ex-

clusive Economic Zone L’sing ‘GLORIA’, Proceedings: The Ex-clusive Economic Zone Symposium: Exploring the New Ocean Frontier, M. Lockwood and G. Hill (eds. ), conference sponsored byNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, L’. S. Departmentof the Interior, Smithsonian Institution, and Marine Technology. So-ciety, held at Smithsonian Institution, Oct. 2-3, 1985, p. 76.

Table 4.2.—Side-Looking Sonars— ..-

Area EquipmentMax Fish Max Tow coverage Resolution Tow

Frequency rangeCost a

beamwidth Dimensions weight speed rate c at max range depth M = millionsSystem k i l o h e r t z k m degrees meters pounds knots km2/day meters meters K=thousand Cost/km 2

.—. . —-Swath Map

(SQS-26CX) .. .3.5 37 >2.5 x NA hull mounted — 20 66,000 >100 hull —bGLORIA II . .....6.2/6.8 22.5 2.5 X 30 7.75 x .66 dia 4,000 10 20,000 100 50 typSeaMARC II .. ..11/12 10 2.0 x 40 5.5 x 1.3 dia 3,800 8 3,000

$1.3M $2-$410 200 typ $1.2M $5-$10

SeaMARC 1. .. ..27/30 2.5 1.7 x 50 3 x 1.2x 1.1 1,300 5 1,100 5 6,000 max $900KSEAMOR . . . . . . .27/30 3 1.7 x 50 3.8 X 1.9x 2.3 6,400 2 500 3

$20-$406,000 max $2M

Deep Tow .. ....110 1 . 7 5 x 6 0 N A 2,000 (in water) 2 170 1 7,000 —SAR . . . . . . . . . . . 170/190 0.75 0 .5x80 5 x 1.0 dia

—4,800 2 130 0.75 6,100 max —

EDO 4075......100 0.6—

2.0 x 50 4.3 x 1.0 dia 2,000 2 104 0.5 6,000 max $600KSeaMARC CL. ..150 0.5

$150-$4001.5 x 50 2 x.4x.4 175 2 97 0.5 1,500 max $250K

EG&G SMS 960.105 0.5—

1.2 x 50 1.4 x.1 1 dia 55 15 670 0.5 600 max $96K $10-$60SMS 260.....105 0.5 1.2 x 50 1.4 x.1 1 dia 55 15 670 0.5 600 max $42K

Klein . . . .......50$10-$60

0.5 1.5 x 40 1.5 x .09 dia 62 16 710 0.5 2,300 max $40-50K $10-$60100 0.4 1.0 x 40 1.4 x .09 dia 52 16 570 0.4 2,300 max $40-50K $10-$60500 0.2 0.2 x 40 1.2 x .09 dia 48 16 280 0.2 2,300 max $40-50K $10-$60

a~osts are for Com-plete systems, Irlcludlng .flsh, ” electronics-(subsea and topside), ar,alog or dlgltal recording, and w!nch and cable Winch and cable cOStS are substantial ($250.000) for deeP.water sYstemsThe ship positioning system IS not Included, but fish positioning (relatlve to the ship) IS tncluded for deep. water systems (.$80,000) Costs probably tend to be underestimated because they are for more basicsystems than would likely be used In general, costs range from $50,000 to $150,000 for shallow systems $600,000 to $900,000 for short-range, deep tow systems, and from $1 mllllon to $3 mllllon for Iong. range

bfiy~~eo~~ ,s estimated for SWATf+MAp A graphic recorder ,s the only extra e~ulprnent needed lt a frigate IS equipped with an sQS.26CX sonar NO cost estlf’flate IS glverl for Deep TOW because It has been

a constantly evolving system incorporating many more capabllttles than just the Imag!ng system No cost IS available for the French-developed SARC T he f l g u r es given for area coverage rate assume opera t ions a t max imum speed and rna~lnlunl range 24 hours per day I n practice, transit t ime weather delays, CrOX+llnes, equl pment failures, etc reduce

the effective nljmber of hours per day In shallow water the maximum useful range decreases because the Image becomes distorted by refraction at shallow angles and Its appearance deteriorates becauseof the changes In reflect Ion characteristics If grazing angles are less than about 5

NA—not available

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstratlon

●


Figure 4-2.—GLORIA Long-Range Side. Looking Sonar

a) GLORIA ready for deployment b) Schematic of GLORIA system

125° 30'W

c) GLORIA image of Taney Seamounts

SOURCE: U S. Geological Survey.

72-672 0 - 87 -- 5


USGS used GLORIA in 1984 to survey the EEZadjacent to California, Oregon, and Washington.This entire area (250,000 square nautical miles) wassurveyed in 96 survey days (averaging about 2,600square nautical miles per day). In 1985, USGS usedGLORIA to complete the survey of the Gulf ofMexico started in 1982 and to survey offshore areasadjacent to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In1986, GLORIA surveys were conducted in partsof the Bering Sea and in Hawaiian waters. The ben-efits of using GLORIA data to reconnoiter the EEZhave become apparent in that, among other things,several dozen previously unknown volcanoes (po-tential sites for hard mineral deposits) were discov-ered.9 These and other features appear in USGS’srecently published west coast GLORIA atlas, a col-lection of 36, 2- by 2-degree sheets at a scale of1:500,000. 10 Digital GLORIA data will be evenmore useful in the future, as additional bathymet-ric, magnetic, gravity, and other types of data arecollected and integrated in the database.

USGS has now acquired its own GLORIA (itpreviously leased one owned by 10 S). Known asGLORIA Mark III, this newest system is an im-proved version of earlier models, incorporatingtitanium transducers and a digitized beam-steeringunit to correct for yaw.

11 During the next severalyears, GLORIA Mark III is scheduled to surveyAlaskan, Hawaiian, and Atlantic EEZs. The USGSplan is to survey the entire U.S. EEZ by 1991, withthe exception of the U.S. Trust Territories, the ice-covered areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas,and continental shelf areas (i. e., areas shallowerthan 200 meters (656 feet)).

The potential market for GLORIA surveys hasrecently attracted a private sector entrepreneur,Marconi Underwater Systems of the United King-dom. Marconi is convinced that other coastal stateswill wish to explore their EEZs and will look to com-mercial contractors for assistance. Eventually,USGS also may be in a position to use its GLORIAfor mapping the EEZs of other countries. Once theU.S. EEZ is surveyed, GLORIA would be avail-able for use to explore EEZs of countries that havecooperative science programs with the UnitedStates.—

‘Ibid.10EEZ Scan 1984 Scientific Staff, A das.I ID, Swinbanks, “New GLORIA in Record Time, ’ Nature, \Tol.

320, Apr. 17, 1986, p. 568.

USGS is coordinating its GLORIA programwith the detailed EEZ survey program of the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). NOAA is using Sea Beam and Bathy-metric Swath Survey System (BS3) technology (dis-cussed below) to produce detailed bathymetriccharts. NOAA uses GLORIA information pro-vided by USGS for determining survey priorities.USGS geologists use NOAA’s bathymetry in con-junction with GLORIA data to assist in interpret-ing the geologic features of the seafloor. The mostaccurate geological interpretations will result fromuse of many different types of data simultaneously:side-looking sonar, bathymetry, gravity, magnetic,seismic, electrical, etc.

Midrange Side-Looking Sonar

Like GLORIA, midrange systems record theacoustic reflection from the seafloor; however, theyare capable of much higher resolution. In addition,whereas GLORIA is used to obtain a general pic-ture of the seafloor, midrange and shortrange side-looking sonars are usually used for more detailedsurveys. A seabed miner interested in looking fora specific resource would select and tune the side-looking sonar suitable for the job. For example,manganese nodule fields between the Clarion andClipperton fracture zones in the Pacific Ocean weremapped in 1978 using an imaging system speciallydesigned and built for that purpose.

The Sea Mapping And Remote Characteriza-tion systems—SeaMARC I and II—developed byInternational Submarine Technology, Ltd. (1ST),and, respectively, Lamont-Doherty Geological Ob-servatory and the Hawaii Institute of Geophysics(HIG), are two of several such systems available.SeaMARC I recently has been used to survey theGorda and Juan de Fuca ridges. 12 It can resolvetectonic and volcanic features with as little as 3meters of relief. Higher resolution is obtained be-cause midrange systems use wider bandwidths andgenerally operate at higher frequencies (10 to 80

12J.G Kosalos and D. Chayes, “A Portable System for Ocean Bot-tom Imaging and Charting, Proceedings, Oceans 83, sponsored byMarine Technology and IEEE Ocean Engineering Society, Aug. 29-Sept. 1, 1983, pp. 649-656.

IJE,S. Kappel and W. B. F. Ryan, “Volcanic Episodicity and a Non-Steady State Rift Valley Along Northeast Pacific Spreading Centers:E\idence from Sea Marc I,’’ Journal of Geophysical Research, 1986,in press


kilohertz) than long-range systems and because theyare towed closer to the bottom. 14 However, higherresolution is obtained at the expense of swath width.

SeaMARC I data is relatively expensive to ac-quire, given the smaller area that can be surveyedin a given time; however, SeaMARC I coveragein specific areas is a logical follow-on to GLORIAregional coverage, as the information it providesis of much higher resolution. For example, little isknown about the small-scale topography of sea-mounts and ridges where cobalt crusts are found.SeaMARC I surveys (or surveys by a similar deep-towed system) will be needed to determine thissmall-scale topography before appropriate miningequipment can be designed. 15

Interferometric Systems

By measuring the angle of arrival of sound echoesfrom the seafloor in addition to measuring echo am-plitude and acoustic travel time, interferometric sys-tems are able to generate multi-beam-like bathy-metric contours as well as side-scanning sonarimagery (table 4-3). 16 SeaMARC II developedjointly by 1ST and HIG, newer versions of Sea-

——-—14Rowland, Goud, McGregor, ‘ ‘The L’ .S. Exclusive Economic

Zone—Summary, ” p. }8.‘5J. R, Hein, L.A. Morgenson, D.A. Clague, et al , “Cobalt-Rich

Ferromanganese Crusts From the Exclusive Economic Zone of theUnited States and Nodules From the Oceanic Pacific, Geology andResource PotentiA of the Continental Margin of k$’es[ern .\70rth Amer-ica and Adjacent Ocean Basins—Beaufbrt Sea to I?aJ”a California, D.Scholl, A, Grantz, and J. Vedder (eds. ), American Association of Pe-troleum Geologists, Memoir 43, in press, 1986.

“J. G. Blackinton, D.M. Hussong, and J.G, Kosalos, “First Re-sults From a Combination Side-Scan Sonar and Seafloor MappingSystem (SeaMARC I I),” Proceedings, Offshore Technology Confer-cncc, Houston, TX, May 2-5, 1983, OTC 4478, pp. 307-314.

Table 4-3.—Swath Mapping Systems

Image only Image and bathymetry Bathymetry only

Side looking Interferometric Sector scanSwath Map SeaMARC II HydrosearchGLORIA SeaMARC/S SNAPSeaMARC I SeaMARC TAMU MultibeamSeaMARC II Bathyscan Sea BeamSeaMARC CL TOPO-SSS BSSS/HydrochartDeep Tow SASSSAR BOTASSEDO 4075 Krupp-AtlasEG&G SMS960 Honeywell-ElacEG&G 260 SimradKlein BenetechSOURCE: International Submarine Technology, Ltd.

MARC I, and several other systems have this dualfunction capability.

SeaMARC II is a midrange to long-range side-looking sonar towed 100 meters below the surface(above SeaMARC I, below GLORIA). It is capa-ble of surveying over 3,000 square kilometers (875square nautical miles) per day when towed at 8knots, mapping a swath 10 kilometers wide (20kilometers or more when used for imaging only)in water depths greater than 1 kilometer. Some re-cent SeaMARC II bathymetry products have pro-duced greater spatial resolution than Sea Beam orSASS bathymetry technologies (discussed below).Currently, SeaMARC II does not meet Interna-tional Hydrographic Bureau accuracy standards forabsolute depth, which call for sounding errors ofno more than 1 percent in waters deeper than 100meters, Although there are physical limits to im-provements in SeaMARC accuracy, the substan-tial advantage in rate of coverage may outweighneeds for 1 percent accuracy, particularly in deepwater.17 SeaMARC II’s swath width is roughly fourtimes Sea Beam’s in deep water, so at similar shipspeeds the survey rate will be about four timesgreater.

Two other SeaMARC systems, both of whichwill have the capability to gather bathymetry dataand backscatter imagery, are now being developedat 1ST: SeaMARC TAMU and SeaMARC CL.SeaMARC TAMU is a joint project of the NavalOcean Research and Development Activity, TexasA&M University, and John Chance Associates.The unit will be able to transmit and receive sig-nals simultaneously at several frequencies, whichmay enable identification of texture and bottomroughness.

Concurrently, developments are underway to useSea Beam returns to measure backscatteringstrength; hence, technical developments are begin-ning to blur the distinction between SeaMARC andSea Beam systems.

18 Additional advances in seabed

mapping systems are being made in the design oftow vehicles and telemetry systems, in signal proc-

1 TD, E. pryor, Nation~ Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.OTA Workshop on Technologies for Surveying and Exploring thrExclusive Economic Zone, Washington, DC, June 10, 1986.

1 B\~ogt and Tucholke, ‘‘ Imaging the Ocean Floors, p. 34.


Photo credit: International Submarine Technology, Ltd.

Sea MARC II towfish

essing, in materials used in transducers, and ingraphic recording techniques.19

Short-Range Side-Looking Sonar

Short-range side-looking sonar systems are usedfor acquiring acoustic images of small areas. Theyare not used for regional reconnaissance work, butthey may be used for detailed imaging of seafloorfeatures in areas previously surveyed withGLORIA or SeaMARC I or II. Operating fre-quencies of short-range sonars are commonly be-tween 100 and 500 kilohertz, enabling very highresolution. Like midrange systems, they are towedclose to the ocean bottom. Deep Tow, developedby Scripps Institution of Oceanography, has beenused to study morphology of sediment bedformsand processes of crustal accretion at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.20 SAR (Systeme Acoustique Re-morque) is a similar French system, reportedly ca-pable of distinguishing objects as small as 30 by 76centimeters (12 by 30 inches). It is towed about 60meters off the seafloor and produces a swath ofabout 1,000 meters. Both of these deep-water sys-tems have been used in the search for the Titanic .21

SeaMARC CL is a short-range deep-towed inter-ferometric system which is under development (fig-ure 4-3). One model has been built for use in theGulf’ of Mexico; another has been configured bySea Floor Surveys International for use by the pri-vate sector and is available for hire. Shallow water,high-resolution, side-looking sonar systems devel-oped by EG&G and Klein are used for such activ-ities as harbor clearance, mine sweeping, anddetailed mapping of oil and gas lease blocks.

Bathymetric Systems

Bathymetry is the measurement of water depths.Modern bathymetric technologies are used to de-termine water depth simultaneously at many loca-tions. Very accurate bathymetric charts showingthe topography of the seafloor can be constructedif sufficient data are collected with precise naviga-tional positioning (figure 4-4). These charts are im-portant tools for geological and engineering inves-tigations of the seafloor, as well as aids to navigationand fishing. If bathymetric and side- looking so-nar data are integrated and used jointly, the prod-uct is even more valuable.

Most existing charts are based on data acquiredusing single beam echo-sounding technology. Thistechnology has now been surpassed by narrow,multi-beam technology that enables the collectionof larger amounts of more accurate data. The olderdata were obtained without the aid of precise posi-tioning systems. Moreover, existing data in the off-shore regions of the EEZ generally consist of sound-ings along lines 5 to 10 miles apart with positionaluncertainties of several kilometers .22 Charts in theexisting National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration/National Ocean Service (NOAA/NOS) series are usually compiled from less than10,000 data points. In contrast, similar charts usingthe newer multi-beam technology are compiledfrom about 400,000 data points, and this quantityconstitutes a subset of only about 2 percent of theobserved data. Hence, much more information isavailable for constructing very detailed charts.

‘9M, Klein, “High-Resolution Seabed Mapping: New Develop-m e n t s , Proceedings, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,TX, May 1984, p.75.

ZoVogt and Tucholke, “Imaging the Ocean Floor, ” p. 34.ZIP,R. Ryan and A. Rabushka, “The Discovery of the Titanic by

the U.S. and French Expedition, ’ Ocean us, vol. 28, No. 4, winter1985/86, p. 19.

22D. E. Pryor, “Overview of NOAA’s Exclusive Economic ZoneSurvey Program, Ocean Engineering and the Environment, Oceans85 Conference Record, sponsored by Marine Technology and IEEEOcean Engineering Society, Nov. 12-14, 1985, San Diego, CA, pp.1186-1189.

Ch. 4—Technologies for Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone 125

Figure 4-3.—SeaMARC CL images

Three images made of a PB4Y aircraft at the bottom of Lake Washington near Seattle. Swath width, altitude, and depth oftowfish varies.

SOURCE: International Submarine Technology, Ltd.


Figure 4-4.—Multi-Beam Bathymetry Products

45” 10’

a) Contour map of part of the Kane Fracture Zone, Mid-Atlantic Ridge

b) Three-dimensional Mesh Surface Presentation of the samedata. Charts and 3-D presentations such as these are impor-tant tools for geological and engineering investigations ofthe seafloor,

SOURCE: R. Tyce, Sea Beam Users Group.

Improvements in seafloor mapping have resultedfrom the development of multi-beam bathymetrysystems (table 4-4), the application of heave-roll-pitch sensors to correct for ship motion, the im-proved accuracy of satellite positioning systems, andimproved computer and plotter capability for proc-essing map data.

23 These improvements makepossible:

Z$C. Andreasen, “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion Exclusive Economic Zone Mapping Project, in Proceedings:The Exclusive Economic Zone Symposium: Exploring the New OceanFrontier, M, Lockwood and G. Hill (eds. ), conference sponsored byNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Smithsonian Institution, and Marine Society, held atSmithsonian Institution, Oct. 2-3, 1985, pp. 63-67.

1.

2.

3.

4.

much higher resolutionbottom features;a significant decreasemaking area surveys;nearly instantaneouscharts, eliminating thecartography; 24 and

for detecting fine scale

in time required for

automated contourneed for conventional

the availability of data in digital format.

Deep-Water Systems

Swath bathymetric systems are of two types:those designed to operate in deep water and thosedesigned primarily for shallow water. The principaldeep-water multi-beam systems currently in use inthe United States are Sea Beam and SASS. SeaBeam technology, installed on NOAA’s NOS shipsto survey EEZ waters deeper than 600 meters, firstbecame available from General Instrument (GI)Corp. in 1977. GI’s original multi-beam bathymet-ric sonar, the Sonar Array Sounding System (orSASS) was developed for the U.S. Navy and is notavailable for civilian use. Sea Beam is a spinoff fromthe original SASS technology.

Sea Beam is a hull-mounted system, which uses16 adjacent beams, 8 port and 8 starboard, to sur-vey a wide swath of the ocean bottom on both sidesof the ship’s track (figure 4-5). Each beam coversan angular area 2.670 square. The swath angle isthe sum of the individual beam width angles, or42.670, With the swath angle set, the swath widthdepends on the ocean depth. At the continental shelfedge, i.e., 200 meters, the swath width is about 150meters at the bottom; in 5,000 meters (16,400 feet)of water, the swath width is approximately 4,000meters. Therefore, Sea Beam’s survey rate isgreater in deeper waters. By carefully spacing shiptracks, complete (or overlapping) coverage of anarea can be obtained. The contour interval ofbathymetric charts produced from Sea Beam canbe set as fine as 2 meters.

The Navy’s older SASS model uses as many as60 beams, providing higher resolution than SeaBeam in the direction perpendicular to the ship’strack (Sea Beam resolution is better parallel to theship’s track). In current SASS models, the outer10 or so beams are often unreliable and not used .25

24H. K. Farr, “Multibeam Bathymetric Sonar: Sea Beam andHydrochart, Marine Geodosy, vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 88-89.

Zsvogt and Tucholke, “Imaging the Ocean Floor, ” p. 37.


Table 4-4.--Bathymetry Systemsa

Swath Max SystemFrequency Beams Beamwidth angle depth

Systemcost

kilohertz no. degrees degrees meters $10’

Sea Beam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 16 2.7 42.7 11,000 1,800Super Sea Beam (proposed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 48 2 96 11,000 —Towed Sea Beam (proposed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 32 2 64 — —

BS 3/Hydrochart ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 21/17 5 105 600/1,000 1,200

KRUPP Atlas Hydrosweepb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5 59 1.8 90 10,000 2,000

Honeywell ELAC Superchartc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2 90 7,000 3,00061 2 120 600 3,000

Minichart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 40 3 120 1,000 —SIMRAD EM 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 32 2/2.5 40/80/104 420 500HOLLMING Echos 15/625 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 15 2 42

Echos AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 15 2 42 60045 60 2 90 6,000

BENTECH Benigraphd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 200 0.5 100 30 2,000740 200 0.75 100 50 2,000500 200 1 100 60 2,000

alnt~rf~rOm~t~C ~Y~t~~~t~,~,,s~aMARc l~a~~~~”~ide~ad i“tabled.z;however,they couldbecoflsidered iflthebathyrnet~ctable aswdl,astheyhwethe pOterttldof producing bathymetric data equivalent to that of multibeam systems. This system does not yet produce adequate bathymetric information, but improved versionsare under development. Another system, the Bathyscan 300, has recently become commercially available. This system has demonstrated acceptable accuracy. ltoper-atesat 300 kilohertz, covers swathsof 200 meters width In waters less than 70 meters deep, weighs about 550 pounds, and costs about $400,000.

bKrUpp.AtlaS’ HydrOSWeepiS installedmthe Meteorll, but isnotyetoperationalCThe characteristics of Honeywell’s ELAC are quoted from proposals, Honeywell claims no system was built other than an experimental one. The comPanY did suPPIY

transducers to the Hollming Shipyard in Finland for three Soviet ships. Data from Hollming indicates that the systems that were built using these transducers werevirtual clones of the Sea Beam system.

dBentech,s Benig raph is oriented toward use in pipeline construction, The unit has very high resolution and a short rmge and can eaSily be scaled to lower frequencies

and used as a mapping system. Company management has stated that this approach is their intention.

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Figure 4-5.— Sea Beam Beam Patterns

The Sea Beam swath width at the seafloor depends on waterdepth. In 200 meters of water the swath width is about 150meters; in 5,000 meters of water, the swath width is approxi-mately 4,000 meters.

SOURCE: R Tyce, Sea Beam Users Group

Hence, an upgraded SASS is now being designedthat will be more reliable and will feature improvedbeam-forming and signal-processing capabilities.These should improve performance of the outerbeams in deep water.

Improvements in Sea Beam, which has per-formed very well but which is now considered tobe old technology, have also been proposed. Oneproposed modification is to develop a capability toquantify the strength of the signal returning fromthe bottom.26 With such information, it would bepossible to predict certain bottom characteristics.Nodule fields, for example, already have beenquantified using acoustic backscatter information,Another proposed modification is to build a towedSea Beam system. Such a system could be movedfrom ship to ship as required. 27

All bathymetric systems have resolution andrange limits imposed by wave front spreading, ab-sorption, and platform noise. However, by reduc-ing Sea Beam’s current beam width, its resolutioncan be improved. There are limitations to usingthe immense amounts of data that would be col-lected by a higher resolution system. Only a smallfraction (2 percent) of existing Sea Beam data are

26C. de Mcmstier, ‘ ‘Inference of Managese Nodule Co\erage FromSea Beam Acoustic Backscattering Data, ” Geophysics 50, 1985, pp.989-1001.

27D, white, \~]ce president, General Instruments, OTA Workshopon Technologies for Surveying and Exploring the Exclusi\’e EconomicZone, Washington, DC, June 10, 1986.


used in making bathymetric charts (except forcharts of very small areas), and generating chartswith a 1- meter contour interval is impractical. SeaBeam, unlike SASS, may be installed on smallships. In order to build a Sea Beam with a 10 beamwidth, an acoustic array 2.5 times longer than cur-rent models would be required. To accommodatesuch an array, one must either tow it or use a largership. The Navy has found that the current SeaBeam system is capable of producing contour chartsof sufficient quality for most of its needs and is cur-rently considering deploying Sea Beam systems forseveral of its smaller ships.

It is important to match resolution requirementswith the purpose of the survey. Use of additionalexploration technologies in conjunction with SeaBeam data may provide better geological interpre-tations than improving the resolution of the SeaBeam system alone. For instance, combined ba-thymetry and side-looking sonar data may revealmore features on the seafloor.

Improving swath coverage is probably more im-portant than improving resolution for reconnais-sance surveys. Wider swath coverage, for exam-ple, could increase the survey rate and reduce thetime and cost of reconnaissance surveys. SeaBeam’s swath angle is narrow compared to that ofGLORIA or SeaMARC (figure 4-6); thus the areathat can be surveyed is smaller in the same timeperiod. It may be possible to extend Sea Beam ca-pability from the current 0.8 times water depth toas much as 4 times water depth without losing hy-drographic quality.

28 The current limit is imposedby the original design; hence, a small amount ofdevelopment may produce a large gain in surveycoverage without giving up data quality.

Another factor that affects the survey rate is theavailability of the Global Positioning System (GPS)for navigation and vessel speed. Currently, NOAAuses GPS when it can; however, it is not yet fullyoperational. When GPS is inaccessible, NOAAsurvey vessels periodically must approach land tomaintain navigational fixes accurate enough forcharting purposes. This reduces the time availablefor surveying. Ship speed is also a factor, but in-

creases in speed would not result in as great im-provements in the survey rate as increases in swathwidth. Operating costs for some typical bathymet-ric systems are shown in figure 4-7.

Shallow-Water Systems

Several shallow-water bathymetric systems areavailable from manufacturers in the United States,Norway, West Germany, and Japan. NOAA usesHydrochart, commonly known as the Bathymet-ric Swath Survey System (BS3), for charting incoastal waters less than 600 meters (1 ,970 feet)deep. One of the principle advantages BS3 has overSea Beam is the wider angular coverage available,1050 versus 42.70, enabling a wider swath to becharted. This angular coverage converts to about260 percent of water depth, in contrast to 80 per-cent of depth for Sea Beam. Data acquisition ismore rapid for BS3 because the swath width is widerand transmission time in shallow water is reduced.29

Hence, signal processing and plotting requirementsfor BS3 are different than those for Sea Beam. GIhas recently introduced Hydrochart H, an im-proved version of Hydrochart. The principal differ-ence is a maximum depth capability of 1,000meters. With its 17 beams, Hydrochart II offersmuch greater resolution and accuracy than oldersingle-beam sonars.

Along the narrow continental shelf bordering thePacific Coast, bathymetry in very shallow water isfairly well known. Thus, NOAA has set an inshorelimit of 150 meters for its BS3 surveys (except forspecial applications), even though BS3 is designedto be used in water as shallow as 3 meters. In re-gions where there are broad expanses of relativelyshallow water and where the bathymetry is less wellknown, as off Alaska and along the Atlantic Coast,BS3 maybe used in water less than 150 meters deep.

Various bathymetric charting systems are cur-rently under development which may enable sys-tematic surveying of very shallow waters, limitedonly by the draft of the vessel. One such system,for use in waters less than 30 meters deep, is theairborne laser. Laser systems are under develop-ment by the U.S. Navy, the Canadians, Aus-tralians, and others. NOAA’s work in this field

Z8R, Tyce, Director, Sea Beam Users Group, OTA Workshop onTechnologies for Surveying and Exploring the Exclusive EconomicZone, Washington, DC, June 10, 1986.

29 Farr, “Multibeam Bathymetric Sonar, ” p. 91.


1,000

100

10

1

Figure 4-6.–Operating Costs for Some Bathymetryand Side. Looking Sonar Systems

“lo 100 1,000 10,000

Depth (meters)

NOTES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Operating costs are not really system characteristics but are primarily determined by platform (ships, etc.) costs(including Positioning system operation). platform costs are highly variable. Variability is influenced more by eco-nomic conditions, ship operating costs, etc. than by survey system requirements.

For shallow water imaging systems, work generally takes place in relatively protected areas not far from a port.Shallow water surveys can be performed using small (30-60 ft long) vessels at costs of from $500-$1200 per day,but operations would likely be limited to daylight hours. Considering daily transits, it would be difficult to surveymore than 8 hours per day in an area or, given downtimes caused by inclement weather, to average more than 4hours daily

Acquisition of deep water acoustic data commonly requires use of a larger, oceangoing vessel that can operate24 hours a day. At this time, operational costs range from $5K-$15K a day for such vessels. With a system cap-able of withstanding 10 knot towing speeds, it should be possible to survey, on the average, 100 nautical trackmiles a day. Production goals for the Surveyor and the Davidson are 65 linear nautical miles per day.

Several imaging systems can be operated in different modes to give higher resolution data, but this will be at apenalty to the cost of coverage.

Experience with only three bathymetric systems is adequate enough (and not classified) to estimate operatingcosts. These are Sea Beam, BSSS/Hydrochart 11, and the Simrad EM100.

Bathymetric system operating costs are based on the assumption that 100 nautical miles of seafloor a day can besurveyed using a vessel costing $5K-$15K per day.

Costs of processing data (whether side-looking or bathymetric) are not included.

SOURCE: D. Pryor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric


Figure 4-7.—Comparing SeaMARC and Sea Beam Swath Widths

The SeaMARC II system can acquire both bathymetric data andthat of the Sea Beam system. The Sea Beam system, however,

sonar imagery and has a swath width more than four timesproduces more accurate bathymetry.

SOURCE: International Submarine Technology, Ltd., Redmond, WA.

stopped in 1982, due to limited funds. The Cana-dian system, the Larsen 500, is now being used bythe Canadian Hydrographic Service. The Aus-tralian laser depth sounding system, WRELADS,has been used experimentally to map a swath 200meters wide.30 Water must be clear (i. e., withoutsuspended sediments) for the airborne lasers towork. Towed underwater lasers have not yet beendeveloped.

Another method currently under developmentfor use in very shallow water is airborne electromag-netic (AEM) bathymetry. This technique has re-cently been tested at sea by the Naval Ocean Re-

search and Development Activity (NORDA).31

NORDA reports that with additional research anddevelopment, the AEM method maybe able to pro-duce accurate bathymetric charts for areas as deepas 100 meters. Passive multispectral scanners alsohave been applied to measuring bathymetry.32 Acombination of laser, AEM, and multispectral tech-niques may be useful to overcome the weather andturbidity limits of lasers alone. Satellite altimetersand synthetic aperture radar images of surface ex-pressions can also indicate bathymetry, but much

K. “Land Into Sea Does Not Go, ” Remote Sensing

Applications in Science and Technology, (cd.) MA: D. Publishing Co., 1983), p. 366.

Won and K. Smits, “Airborne Electromagnetic try, ” Report 94, U.S. Navy, Naval Ocean Research and De-velopment Activity, April 1985.

32D. R. Lyzenga, “Passive Remote Sensing Techniques for Map-ping Water Depth and Bottom Features, Optics, No. 3, February 1978, pp. 29-33.


less accurately.33 If airborne bathymetric survey

techniques for shallow water can be further refined,they would have the distinct advantage over ship-based systems of being able to cover much moreterritory in much less time and at reduced cost.Technology for airborne surveys in deep water hasnot yet been developed.

Systematic Bathymetric Mapping of the EEZ

NOAA has recently begun a long-range projectto survey and produce maps of the entire U.S.EEZ. The NOAA ship Surveyor is equipped withSea Beam and has been mapping the EEZ sinceMay 1984. Initial Sea Beam surveys were madeof the Outer Continental Shelf, slope, and upperrise off the coasts of California and Oregon. 34 Asecond Sea Beam was installed aboard Discoverer

in 1986. The Davidson has been equipped with BS3

since 1978, NOAA plans to acquire two additionalswath mapping systems with 1987 and 1988 fiscalyear funds.

NOAA is currently able to map between 1,500and 2,500 square nautical miles per month (withtwo ships, Surveyor and Davidson, working on thewest coast continental slope). This is significantlybelow the expected coverage rate for the Sea Beam.Transit time, weather, crosslines, equipment fail-ure, and decreased efficiency in shallower water arefactors that have limited production to about 50square nautical miles per ship per day. Moreover,NOAA has not yet surveyed any areas beyond 120miles from the coast. With the GPS available onlypart-time, too much time would be wasted in main-taining accurate navigation control on the outer halfof the EEZ. Delays in launching satellites, theChallenger accident, and several recent failures ofGPS satellites already in orbit are further erodingthe near-term usefulness of GPS and, therefore,limiting the efficiency of NOAA surveys.

33W. Alpers and 1. Hennings, “A Theory of the Imaging Mecha-nism of Underwater Bottom Topography by Real and Synthetic Aper-ture Radar, ’ ‘~ournzd of Geophysical Research, vol. 89, No. C6, No\”.20, 1984, Pp. 10,529-10,546.

34D. E. Pryor, “NOAA Exclusive Economic Zone Survey Pro-gram, ‘‘ in PA CON 86, proceedings of the Pacific Congress on Ma-rine Technology, sponsored by Marine Technology Society, HawaiiSection, Honolulu, HA, Mar. 24-28, 1986, pp. OST5/9,10.

The agency would like to map all 2.3 millionsquare nautical miles of the U.S. EEZ. With cur-rent technology, funding, and manpower, thisproject could take more than 100 years. In orderto ensure that the most important areas are sur-veyed first, NOAA consults with USGS and usesUSGS’s GLORIA side-looking sonar imagery toselect survey targets. USGS has provided funds toNOAA for data processing; in return, NOAA ac-cepts the survey priorities set by USGS.

By mid-1986, less than 1 percent of the U.S. EEZhad been systematically surveyed with NOAA’s SeaBeam and BS3 systems. To date, few of the chartsor raw data have been publicly released becausethe U.S. Navy has determined that public dissem-ination of high-resolution bathymetric data couldendanger national security. NOAA and the Navyare currently exploring ways to reduce the secu-rity risks while producing bathymetric charts use-ful for marine geologists, potential seabed miners,fishermen, and other legitimate users (see ch. 7).

NOAA’s Survey Program is the only systematiceffort to obtain bathymetry for the entire EEZ; how-ever, several academic institutions have mappedsmall portions of the EEZ. For instance, WoodsHole Oceanographic Institution, Lamont-DohertyGeological Observatory, and Scripps Institution ofOceanography have their own Sea Beam systems.Much of the mapping these institutions have donehas been outside the U.S. EEZ. Moreover, addi-tional bathymetric data (how much of it useful isunknown) are gathered by the offshore petroleumindustry during seismic surveys. As much as 10 mil-lion miles of seismic profiles (or about 15 percentof the EEZ) have been shot by commercial geo-physical service companies in the last decade, andalmost all of these surveys are believed to containecho soundings in some form (probably mostly 3.5kilohertz data) .35 Some of these data are on file atthe National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) inBoulder, Colorado; however, most remain propri-etary. Moreover, maps made from these data might

35R. B. Perry, ‘ ‘Mapping the Exclusive Economic Zone, OceanEngineering and the En;’ironmenf, Oceans 85 Conference Kc-curd,Sponsored by Marine Technology Society and IEEE Ocean Engineer-ing Society, Nov. 12-14, 1985, San Diego, CA, p. 1193. The seismicprofiles themselves generally include ocean bottom reflections whenwater depths are more than about 150 meters. These profiles am ac-curate, continuous bathymetric records along the line of sun.e)’.


also be considered classified under current Depart-ment of Defense policy. The grid lines are oftenonly one-quarter mile apart, indicating that thesemaps would be very accurate (although a stand-ard 3.5 kilohertz echo sounding does not have theresolution of Sea Beam) .36

NOAA is currently exploring ways to utilize dataacquired by academic and private institutions toupgrade existing bathymetric maps to avoid dupli-cation. In some areas, it may be possible to accumu-late enough data from these supplemental sourcesto improve the density and accuracy of coverage.However, because these data usually were notgathered for the purpose of making high-qualitybathymetric maps, these data may not be as ac-curate as needed. NOAA is adhering to Interna-tional Hydrographic Bureau standards becausethese standards are: widely accepted by nationalsurveying agencies, result in a product with a highdegree of acceptance, and are feasible to meet.NOAA could relax its standards if this meant thatan acceptable job could be done more efficiently.For example, if depth accuracy of the SeaMarc 11system (which has a much wider swath width thanSea Beam) could be improved from the present 3percent of depth to 1.5 percent or better, NOAAmight consider using SeaMarc II in its bathymet-ric surveys.

Public data sets rarely have the density of cov-erage that would provide resolution approachingthat of a multi-beam survey. Commercial surveydata are not contiguous over large areas becausethey cover only selected areas or geologic structures.Data may be from a wide beam or deep seismicsystem, possibly uncorrected for velocity or un-edited for quality. Data sets would also be difficultto merge. Unless the lines are sufficiently dense,computer programs cannot grid and produce con-tours from the data at the scale and resolution ofmulti-beam data. 37

SASS data acquired by the U.S. Navy is classi-fied. NOAA neither knows what the bathymetryis in areas surveyed by SASS nor what areas havebeen surveyed. More optimistically, once the

S6C. Savit, senior vice President, Western Geophysical, OTAWorkshop on Technologies for Surveying and Exploring the Exclu-sive Economic Zone, Washington, DC, June 10, 1986.

“Perry, “Mapping the Exclusive Economic Zone, ” p. 1193.

Global Positioning System becomes availablearound the clock, thereby enabling precise naviga-tional control at all times, it may be possible forNOAA to utilize multi-beam surveys conducted byothers, e.g., by University National OceanographicLaboratory System (UNOLS) ships. If the threeuniversity ships currently equipped with Sea Beamcould be used as ‘ ‘ships of opportunity’ whenotherwise unemployed or underemployed, bothNOAA and the academic institutions would bene-fit. NOAA has already discussed the possibility offunding Sea Beam surveys with the Scripps Insti-tution of Oceanography.

Reflection and Refraction Seismology

Seismic techniques are the primary geophysicalmethods for acquiring information about the geo-logical structure and stratigraphy of continentalmargins and deep ocean areas. Seismic techniquesare acoustic, much like echo sounding and sonar,but lower frequency sound sources are used (fig-ure 4-8). Sound from low-frequency sources, ratherthan bouncing off the bottom, penetrates the bot-tom and is reflected or refracted back to one or moresurface receivers (channels) from the boundariesof sedimentary or rock layers or bodies of differ-ent density (figure 4-9). Hence, in addition tosedimentary thicknesses and stratification, struc-tural characteristics such as folds, faults, rift zones,diapirs, and other features and the characteristicseismic velocities in different strata may be deter-mined (figure 4-10).

Seismic reflection techniques are used extensivelyto search for oil, but they are also used in mineralexploration. Reflection techniques have been andcontinue to be refined primarily by the oil indus-try. Seismic refraction, in contrast to seismic reflec-tion, is used less often by the oil industry than itonce was; however, the technique is still used foracademic research. Ninety-eight percent of all seis-mic work supports petroleum exploration; less than2 percent is mineral oriented.

The depth of wave penetration varies with thefrequency and power of the sound source. Low-fre-quency sounds penetrate deeper than high-fre-quency sounds; however, the higher the frequencyof the sound source, the better the resolution pos-sible. Seismic systems used for deep penetration


Figure 4-8.—Frequency Spectra of Various Acoustic Imaging Methods

F r e q u e n c y

SOURCE: “A Historical to Underwater Acoustics, With Reference to Echo Sounding, Sub-bottom Profiling, and Side Scan in (cd.), Developments in SidesCan Sonar Techniques (Capetown, South Africa: ABC Press, Ltd., 1982).

range in frequency from about 5 hertz to 1 kilo-hertz. The systems with sound frequencies in thisrange are very useful to the oil and gas industry.Most often these are expensive multi-channel sys-tems. Since most mineral deposits of potential eco-nomic interest are on or near the surface of theseabed, deep penetration systems have limited use-fulness for mineral exploration. Seismic systemsmost often used for offshore mineral explorationare those that operate at acoustic frequencies be-tween 1 and 14 kilohertz (typically 3.5 kilohertz).These systems, known as sub-bottom profilers, pro-vide continuous high-resolution seismic profilerecordings of the uppermost 30 meters of strata. 38

High-Resolution Geophysical Methods:Offshore Hazards (Boston, MA: International Hu-man Resources Development Corp., 1984), p. 81.

Typically, they are single-channel systems. Theycan be operated at the same ship speeds as bathy-metric and sonar systems. A few towed vehicles areequipped with both side-looking sonar and sub-bottom profiling capability using the same coaxialtow cable.39

One drawback with single-channel systems is thatthey suffer from various kinds of multi-path andpulse reverberation problems, problems best han-dled by multi-channel systems. A 100 or 500 hertzmulti-channel system is able to provide shallowpenetration data while avoiding the problems of

Ingram, “High-Resolution Side-Scan Profiling to 6000M Water Depth, ” unpublished, presented at the Pa-cific Congress on Marine Technology, sponsored by Marine Tech-nology Society, Hawaii Section, Honolulu, HA, Mar. 24-28, 1986.


Figure 4.9.—Seismic Reflection and Refraction Principles

In the seismic reflection technique, sound waves from a source at a ship bounce directly back to the ship fromsediment and rock layers. In the seismic refraction technique, the sound waves from a “shooting” ship travelalong the sediment and rock layers before propagating back to a “receiving” ship.

SOURCE: Rena, Exploration Methods for the Continental Geology, Geophysics, NOAA Technical Report ERL 238-AOML 8 CO: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1972), p. 15.

single-channel systems. Because of cost, however,a multi-channel system is usually not used forreconnaissance work.

High-resolution seismic reflection techniques areable to detect the presence of sediment layers orsand lenses as little as 1 meter thick. In addition,information about the specific type of material de-tected sometimes may be obtained by evaluatingthe acoustic velocity and frequency characteristicsof the material. Seismic techniques may provideclues for locating thin, surficial deposits of man-ganese nodules or cobalt crusts, but side-looking

sonar is a better tool to use for this purpose. Ryanreports that a 1 to 5-kilohertz sub-bottom profilerwas very effective in reconnaissance of sediment-hosted sulfides of the Juan de Fuca Ridge.40 Whileseismic methods provide a cross-sectional view ofstratigraphic and structural geologic framework, ge-ologists prefer to supplement these methods withcoring, sampling, and drilling (i. e., direct meth-ods), with photography and submersible observa-

Geological Observatory, Workshop on Technologies for Surveying and Exploring the Exclu-sive Economic Zone, Washington, DC, June 10, 1986.


Figure 4-10.—Seismic Record With Interpretation

I Sea-surface I

SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey.

tions, and with geochemical sampling of bottomsediments and of the water column, etc., for thehighest quality interpretations.

Advances in reflection seismology have beenmade more or less continuously during the approx-imately 60 years since its invention .41 Recent tech-nological innovations have been the developmentof three-dimensional (3-D) seismic surveying andinteractive computer software for assisting interpre-tation of the mountains of 3-D data generated. Toacquire enough data for 3-D work, survey lines areset very close together, about 25 to 100 metersapart. Data for the gaps between lines then canbe interpolated. The efficiency of data acquisitioncan be increased by towing two separate streamers

— H. Savit, “The Accelerating Pace of Geophysical Technology, ”

Oceans Conference Record, Sponsored by Marine Technology So-ciety and IEEEE Ocean Engineering Society, Sept. 10-12, 1984,(Washington, D. C.: Marine Technology Society, 1984), pp. 87-89.

(and technical advances will soon enable two linesof profile to be acquired from each of two separatecables) .42

Interactive programs allow the viewer to look atconsecutive cross-sections of a 3-D seismic profileor at any part of it in horizontal display. Thus, ifdesired, the computer can strip away everythingbut the layer under study and look at this layer atany angle. Moreover, the surveyed block can becut along a fault line, and one side can be slid alongthe other until a match is made. Interpretation ofdata can be accomplished much faster than on pa-per. Such systems are expensive. While the cost ofacquiring and processing 20 kilometers of two-dimensional seismic data may be from $500 to$2,000 per kilometer, a 3-D high-density survey

OTA Workshop, June 10, 1986.


of a 10-by 20-kilometer area could cost on the or-der of $3 million.

Resolution also continues to improve, assistedby better navigation, positioning, and control meth-ods. An innovation which promises to further im-prove resolution is the use of chirp signals ratherthan sound pulses. Chirp signals are oscillating sig-nals in which frequency is continuously varying.Using computer-generated chirp signals, it is pos-sible to tailor and control emitted frequencies. Incontrast, pulse sources produce essentially uncon-trolled frequencies, generating both useful and un-needed frequencies at the same time.

About 10 million miles of seismic profiles havebeen run in the U.S. EEZ. Most of these data aredeep penetration profiles produced by companiessearching for oil and are therefore proprietary. TheMinerals Management Service within the U.S. De-partment of the Interior (MMS) purchases about15 percent of the data produced by industry, mostof the data are held for 10 years and then turnedover to the National Geophysical Data Center.NGDC archives about 4 million miles of public(mostly academic) seismic data. Much of this datais for regions outside the EEZ. NGDC also archivesUSGS data, most of which are from the EEZ (seech. 7).

It is possible to acquire shallow-penetration seis-mic information (as well as magnetic and gravitydata) at the same time as bathymetric data, so thatsurface features can be related to vertical structureand other characteristics of a deposit. NOAA ac-knowledges that simultaneous collection of differ-ent types of data could be accomplished easilyaboard its survey ships. Additional costs would notbe significant relative to the cost of operating theships, but would be significant relative to currentlyavailable funds. The agency would like to collectthis data simultaneously if funds were available.NOAA hopes to interest academia and the privatesector, perhaps with USGS help, to form a con-sortium to coordinate and manage the gatheringof seismic and other data, using ships of opportu-nity. 43 The offshore seismic firms serving the oil

and gas industry are opposed to any publicly funded

data acquisition that could deprive them of busi-ness opportunities. All but very shallow penetra-tion data generally are of interest to the petroleumindustry and therefore could be considered compet-itive with private sector service companies.

Magnetic Methods

Some marine sediments and rocks (as well assunken ships, pipelines, oil platforms, etc. ) containiron-rich minerals with magnetic properties. Mag-netic methods can detect and characterize thesemagnetic materials and other features by measur-ing differences (or anomalies) in the geomagneticfield. Magnetic (and gravity) techniques are inher-ently reconnaissance tools, since the data producedmust be compiled over fairly broad areas to detecttrends in the composition and structure of rock.However, spatial resolution, or the ability to de-tect increasingly fine detail, varies depending onthe design of the sensor, the spacing of survey lines,and the distance of the sensor from the source ofanomaly.

Satellite surveys are able to detect magneticanomalies on a global or near-global scale. Satel-lite data are important for detecting global or con-tinental structural trends of limited value to re-source exploration. At such broad scale, mineraldeposits would not be detected. Airplane and shipsurveys record finer scale data for smaller regionsthan satellites, enabling specific structures to be de-tected. The closer the sensor to the structure be-ing sensed, the better the resolution, but the timerequired to collect the data, as well as the cost todo so, increases proportionately.

Regional magnetic surveys, usually done by air-plane, can detect the regional geologic pattern, themagnetic character of different rock groups, andmajor structural features which would not be notedif the survey covered only a limited area. 44 For ex-ample, oceanic rifts, the transition between con-tinental and oceanic crusts, volcanic structures, andmajor faults have been examined at this scale. Re-gional magnetic surveys also have been used ex-tensively in exploring for hydrocarbons. Accuratemeasurement of magnetic anomalies can help ge-

+3c, Andreasen, NOAA EEZ project manager, interview by f~.Westermeyer at NOAA, Rockville, MD, Apr. 22, 1986.

+4P. V. Sharma, Geophysical Methods in Geology (New York, NY:Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 1976), p, 228.


ophysicists delineate geologic structures associatedwith petroleum and measure the thickness of sedi-ments above magnetic basement rocks .45

Surveys also may be conducted to locate concen-trations of ferromagnetic minerals on or beneaththe seafloor. The detection of magnetite may beparticularly important in mineral prospecting be-cause it is often found in association with ilmeniteand other heavy minerals. Ilmenite also containsiron, but it is much less strongly magnetized thanthe magnetite with which it is associated (it also mayhave weathered during low stands of sea level andmay have lost magnetic susceptibility).

The precise location of a mineral deposit or otherobject may require a more detailed survey than ispossible by satellite or airplane. Use of ship-towedmagnetometers has met with varying measures ofsuccess in identifying placer deposits. Improve-ments in sensitivity are needed. If enough data aregathered to determine the shape and amplitude ofa local anomaly, the size of an iron-bearing bodyand its trend can be estimated, a common prac-tice on land. When magnetic information can becorrelated with other types of information (e. g.,bathymetric, seismic, and gravity) interpretationis enhanced.

Magnetic anomalies also can be used to locateand study zones of alteration of the oceanic crust.The initial magnetization of the oceanic crust is ac-quired as it cools from a magma to solid rock. Forthe next 5 to 10 million years, hydrothermal cir-culation promotes the alteration of this igneous rockand the generation of new secondary minerals. Ini-tially, the heat of hydrothermal circulation destroysthe thermal remanent magnetization. Rona sug-gests that this reduction in magnetization will pro-duce a magnetic anomaly and signal the proximityof active or inactive smokers or hydrothermalvents. 46 The Deep Sea Drilling project and Ocean

Drilling Program drilling results suggest that as thesecondary minerals grow, they acquire the mag-netization of the ambient magnetic field. This ag-gregate magnetization produces a signature which

45P. A. Rona, “Exploration Methods for the Continental Shelf: Ge-ology, Geophysics, Geochemistry, NOAA Technical Report, F. RI.238-AOML 8 (Boulder, CO: NOA.4, 1972), p. 22.

4bRona, ‘‘ Exploration for Hydrothermal Mineral Deposits atSeafloor Spreading Centers, ” p. 25.

is detectable on a regional scale and might be usedto determine the degree and rate of regional alter-ation. 47

Variations in the intensity of magnetization (totalfield variations) are detected using a magnetome-ter. Magnetometers deployed from ships or air-planes are either towed behind or mounted at anextreme point to minimize the effect of the vessel’smagnetic field. Among the several types of mag-netometers, proton precession and flux-gate typesare most often used. These magnetometers are rela-tively simple to operate, have no moving parts, andprovide relatively high-resolution measurements inthe field. The technology for sensing magneticanomalies is considered mature. A new helium-pumped magnetometer with significantly improvedsensitivity has been developed by Texas Instru-ments and is being adapted to oceanographic work.

Most magnetic measurements are total fieldmeasurements. A modification of this technique isto use a second sensor to measure the differencein the total field between two points rather than thetotal field at any given point. Use of this gradiom-etry technique helps eliminate some of the exter-nal noise associated with platform motion or ex-ternal field variation (e. g., the daily variation inthe magnetic field). This is possible because sen-sors (if in close enough proximity) measure thesame errors in the total field, which are then elim-inated in determining the total field difference be-tween the two points. Gradiometry improves sen-sitivity to closer magnetic sources .48

The most important problem in acquiring high-quality data at sea is not technology but accuratenavigation. The Global Positioning System, whenavailable, is considered more than adequate fmenavigation and positioning needs. Future data, tobe most useful for mineral exploration purposes,will necessarily need to be collected as densely aspossible. It is also important that magnetic (andgravity) data be recorded in a manner that mini-mizes the effects of external sources, such as of thetowing platform, and that whatever data are meas-

+TJ. L, LaBrecque, Lament-Dohe~y Geological Obsen’atory, ~TA,May 1, 1987,

48J. Brozena, Naval Research Laboratory, and J. LaBrcque,Lament-Doherty Geological Observatory, OTA Workshop on Tech-nologies for Surveying and Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone,Washington, DC, June 10, 1986.


ured be incorporated into larger data sets, so thatdata at different scales are simultaneously availableto investigators.

Gravity Methods

Like magnetic methods, the aim of gravity meth-ods is to locate anomalies caused by changes inphysical properties of rocks .49 The anomalies soughtare variations in the Earth’s gravitational field re-sulting from differences in density of rocks in thecrust— the difference between the normal or ex-pected gravity at a given point and the measuredgravity. The instrument used for conducting totalfield gravity surveys is a gravimeter, which is a well-tested and proven instrument. Techniques for con-ducting gradiometric surveys are being developedby the Department of Defense, although these willbe used for classified defense projects and will notbe available for public use.50

The end product of a gravity survey is usuallya contoured anomaly map, showing a plane viewor cross-section. The form in which gravity, as wellas magnetic, data is presented differs from that forseismic data in that the fields observed are integra-tions of contributions from all depths rather thana distinct record of information at various depths.Geophysicists use such anomaly characteristics asamplitude, shape, and gradient to deduce the loca-tion and form of the structure that produces thegravity disturbance.

51 For example, low-densityfeatures such as salt domes, sedimentary infill inbasins, and granite appear as gravity “lows” be-cause they are not as dense as basalt and ore bod-ies, which appear as gravity ‘‘highs. Interpreta-tion of gravity data, however, is generally notstraightforward, as there are usually many possi-ble explanations for any given anomaly. Usually,gravity data are acquired and analyzed togetherwith seismic, magnetic, and other data, each con-tributing different information about the sub-bot-tom geological framework.

Since variations in terrain fleet the force of grav-ity, terrain corrections must be applied to gravity

4gSharma, Geophysical Methods in Geology, p. 88.5~. Brozena, Naval Research Laboratory, OTA Workshop on Tech-

nologies for Surveying and Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone,Washington, DC, June 10, 1986.

Slsharma, Geophysic~ Methods in Geology, p. 131.

data to produce an accurate picture of the struc-ture and physical properties of rocks. Bathymetricdata are used for this purpose; however, terrain cor-rections using existing bathymetry data are rela-tively crude. Terrain corrections using data pro-duced by swath mapping techniques provide amuch improved adjustment.

Like magnetic data, the acquisition of gravitydata may be from satellite, aircraft, or ship. Theway to measure the broadest scale of gravity is froma satellite. SEASAT, for instance, has providedvery broad-scale measurements of the geoid (sur-face of constant gravitational potential) for all theworld’s oceans. To date, almost all gravity cover-age of the EEZ has been acquired by ship-bornegravimeters. Gravimetry technology and interpre-tation techniques are now considered mature forship-borne systems. However, the quality of ship-based gravity data more than 10 years old is poor.Airborne gravimetry is relatively new, and tech-nology for airborne gravity surveys (both total fieldand gravity gradient types) is still being refined.As airborne gravity technology is further developed,it can be expected that this much faster and moreeconomical method of gathering data will be used.

Of all the techniques useful for hard mineralreconnaissance, however, gravity techniques areprobably the least useful. This is because it is verydifficult to determine variations in structure forshallow features (e. g., 200 meters or less). Shallowmaterial is all about the same density, and excessnoise reduces resolution. Gravity techniques areused primarily for investigating intermediate-to-deep structures—the structure of the basement andthe transition between continental and oceaniccrust. Many of these structures are of interest tothe oil industry. Although large faults, basins, orseamounts may be detected with air- or ship-bornegravimeters, it is unlikely that shallow placer de-posits also could be located using this technique.

USGS has published gravity maps of the Atlan-tic coast, the Gulf of Mexico, central and south-ern offshore California, the Gulf of Alaska, and theBering Sea. However, little of the EEZ has beenmapped in detail, and coverage is very spotty. Forexample, port areas appear to be well-surveyed, butdensity of track lines decreases quickly with distancefrom port. Oil companies have done the most grav-


ity surveying, but the information they hold is pro-prietary. Little surveying has been done in veryshallow waters (i. e., less than 10 meters), as thelarger survey ships cannot operate in these waters.

The availability of high-density gravity data (andpossibly also magnetic data) for extensive areas ofthe EEZ may pose a security problem similar tothat posed by high-resolution bathymetry. Gravita-

tional variations affect inertial guidance systems andflight trajectories. The Department of Defense hasconcerns about proposals to undertake systematicEEZ gravity surveys, particularly if done in con-junction with the systematic collection of bathym-etry data, since characteristic subsea features mightbe used for positioning missile-bearing submarinesfor strikes on the United States.

SITE-SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES

Site-specific exploration technologies generallyare those that obtain data from small areas rela-tive to information provided by reconnaissancetechniques. Some of these technologies are deployedfrom a stationary ship or other stationary platformand are used to acquire detailed information at aspecific site. Often, in fact, such techniques as cor-ing, drilling, and grab sampling are used to verifydata obtained from reconnaissance methods. Othersite-specific technologies are used aboard ships mov-ing at slow speeds. Electrical and nuclear techniquesare in this category.

Electrical Techniques

Electrical prospecting methods have been usedextensively on land to search for metals and min-erals, but their use offshore, particularly as appliedto the shallow targets of interest to marine miners,is only just beginning. Recent experiments by re-searchers in the United States and Canada suggestthat some electrical techniques used successfully onland may be adaptable for use in marine mineralexploration. 57 Like other indirect exploration tech-

niques, the results of electrical methods usually canbe interpreted in various ways, so the more inde-pendent lines of evidence that can be marshaled inmaking an interpretation, the better.

The aim of electrical techniques is to deduce in-formation about the nature of materials in the earthbased on electrical properties such as conductivity,

5ZA. D. Chave, S.C, Coustab]e, and R.N. Edwards, ‘‘Electrical Ex-ploration Methods for the Seafloor, ‘‘ in press, 1987. See also S, Chees-man, R.N. Edwards, and AD. Chave, “On the Theory of SeafloorConductivity Mapping Using Transient EM Systems, Geophysics,February 1987; and J.C. Wynn, ‘ ‘Titanium Geophysics—A MarineApplication of Induced Polarization, unpublished draft, 1987.

electrochemical activity, and the capacity of rockto store an electric charge. Electrical techniques aresimilar to gravity and magnetic techniques in thatthey are used to detect anomalies—in this case,anomalies in resistivity, conductivity, etc. , whichallow inferences to be made about the nature of thematerial being studied.

The use of electrical methods in the ocean is verydifferent from their use on land. One reason is thatseawater is generally much more conductive thanthe underlying rock, the opposite of the situationon land where the underlying rock is more conduc-tive than the atmosphere. Hence, working at seausing a controlled-source electromagnetic methodis somewhat analogous to working on land and try-ing to determine the electrical characteristics of theatmosphere. In both cases, one would be lookingat the resistive medium in a conductive environ-ment. The fact that seawater is more conductivethan rock appeared to preclude the use of electri-cal techniques at sea, Improvements in instrumen-tation and different approaches, however, haveovercome this difficulty to a degree, A differencewhich benefits the use of electrical techniques at seais that the marine environment is considerablyquieter electrically than the terrestrial environment.Thus, working in a low-noise environment, it ispossible to use much higher gain amplifiers, andit is usually not necessary to provide the noiseshielding that would be needed on land. Also, coup-ling to the seafloor environment for both source andreceiver electrodes is excellent. Thus, electroderesistances on the seafloor are typically less than1 ohm, whereas on land the resistance would beon the order of 1,000 ohms.

Electrical techniques that may be useful for ma-rine mineral prospecting include electromagnetic


methods, direct current (DC) resistivity, self po-tential, and induced polarization.

Electromagnetic Methods

Electromagnetic (EM) methods detect variationsin the conductive properties of rock. A current isinduced in the conducting earth using electric ormagnetic dipole sources. The electric or magneticsignature of the current is detected and yields ameasure of the electrical conductivity of the under-lying rock. The Horizontal Electric Dipole and theVertical Electric Dipole method are two controlled-source EM systems that have been used in academicstudies of deep structure. Both systems are under-going further development. Recent work suggeststhat these techniques may enable researchers to de-termine the thickness of hydrothermal sulfide de-posits, of which little is currently known. Changesin porosity with depth are also detectable .53 To date,little work has been done regarding the potentialapplicability of these techniques for identifying ma-rine placers.

Researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanog-raphy are currently developing the towed, fre-quency domain Horizontal Electric Dipole methodfor exploration of the upper 100 meters of theseabed. A previous version of this system consistsof a towed silver/silver-chloride transmitting an-tenna and a series of horizontal electric fieldreceivers placed on the seafloor at ranges of 1 to70 kilometers from the transmitter. Since this ar-rangement is not very practical for exploratory pur-poses, the Scripps researchers are now developinga system in which the transmitter and receiver canbe towed in tandem along the bottom. Since thesystem must be towed on the seabed, an armored,insulated cable is used. The need for contact withthe ocean floor limits the speed at which the sys-tem can be towed to 1 to 2 knots and the type oftopography in which it can be used; hence, thismethod, like other electrical techniques, would bemost efficiently employed after reconnaissancemethods have been used to locate areas of specialinterest.

sJp.A. Wo]fgrarn, R.N. Edwards, L. K. Law, and M. N. Bone,“Polymetallic Sulfide Exploration on the Deep Seafloor: The Mini-Moses Experiment, ” Geophysics 51, 1986, pp. 1808-1818.

The Vertical Electric Dipole method is being de-veloped by researchers at Canada’s Pacific Geo-science Center and the University of Toronto. TheCanadian system is known as MOSES, short formagnetometric offshore electrical sounding. It con-sists of a vertical electric dipole which extends fromthe sea surface to the seafloor and a magnetome-ter receiver which measures the azimuthal magneticfield generated by the source .54 The receiver is fixedto the seafloor and remains in place while a shipmoves the transmitter to different locations. AMOSES survey was conducted in 1984 at two sitesin the sediment-filled Middle Valley along thenorthern Juan de Fuca Ridge. Using MOSES, re-searchers estimated sediment and underlying ba-salt resistivity, thickness, and porosity.

Another electromagnetic method with somepromise is the Transient EM Method. Unlike con-trolled source methods in which a sinusoidal sig-nal is generated, a source transmitter is turned onor off so that the response to this ‘‘transient’ canbe studied. An advantage of the Transient EMmethod is that the effects of shallow and deep struc-ture tend to appear at discrete times, so it is possi-ble to separate their effects. Also, the effects of to-pography, which are difficult to interpret, can beremoved, allowing researchers to study the under-lying structure. The Transient EM method alsomay be particularly useful for locating sulfides, sincethey have a high conductivity relative to surround-ing rock and are located in ragged areas of theseafloor. A prototype Transient EM system is cur-rently being designed for survey purposes. It willuse a horizontal magnetic dipole source and receiverand will be towed along the seafloor. 55

Direct Current Resistivity

Resistivity is a measure of the amount of cur-rent that passes through a substance when a speci-fied potential difference is applied. The direct cur-rent resistivity method is one of the simplestelectrical techniques available and has been usedextensively on land to map boundaries between

54D. C. Nobes, L.K. Law, and R.N. Edwards, ‘‘The Determina-tion of Resistivity and Porosity of the Sediment and Fractured BasaltLayers Near the Juan de Fuca Ridge, ” Geophysical Journal of theRoyal Astronomical Society 86, 1986, pp. 289-318.

JsCheesman, Edwards, and Chave, ‘ ‘On the Theory of SeafloorConductivity Mapping. ”


layers having different conductivities.56 Recent ma-rine DC resistivity experiments suggest that the DCresistivity method may have applications for locat-ing and delineating sulfide ore bodies. For exam-ple, during one experiment at the East Pacific Risein 1984, substantial resistivity anomalies were de-tected around known hydrothermal fields, and sea-floor conductivities were observed that were twicethat of seawater .57 In this experiment the sourceand receiver electrodes were towed from a researchsubmersible. Conversely, resistivity techniqueswould not be expected to detect placer deposits, ex-cept under the most unusual circumstances. Thisis because seawater dominates the resistivity re-sponse of marine sediments (as they are saturatednear the surface), and, in this case, only the rela-tive compaction (porosity) of the sediments couldbe measured .58

Self Potential

The self potential (or spontaneous polarization)(SP) method is used to detect electrochemical ef-fects caused by the presence of an ore body. Theorigin of SP fields is uncertain, but it is believedthat they result from the electric currents that areproduced when a conducting body connects regionsof different electrochemical potential, 59 On land,SP has been used primarily in the search for sul-fide mineral deposits. It is a simple technique inthat it does not involve the application of externalelectric fields. However, its use offshore has beenlimited. Results of some experiments have been in-conclusive, but the offshore extension of known landsulfide deposits was successfully detected in a 1977experiment. 60 More recently, researchers at theUniversity of Washington have proposed buildinga towed SP system for exploring the Juan de FucaRidge. SP may prove effective for detecting thepresence of sulfide deposits; however, it is unlikelyto be of help in assessing the size of deposits.

S6M, B, Dobrin, Introduction to Geoph,vsical prospect ing (NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1976), p. 6.

57 T.J.G. Francis, “Resistivity Measurements of an Ocean FloorSulfide Mineral Deposit From the Submersible C}’ana, Marine Geo-

physical Research 7, 1985, pp. 419-438.“J. Wynn, U.S. Geological Survey, letter to W, Westerrneyer,

OTA, May 1986.sgchal~e, Coustable, and Edwards, “Electrical Exploration Meth-

ods for the Seafloor.‘“Ibid,

Induced Polarization

The induced polarization (1P) method has beenused for years to locate disseminated sulfideminerals on land. Recent work by USGS to adaptthe technique for use as a reconnaissance tool tosearch for offshore titanium placers (figure 4-11)has produced some promising preliminary results.The 1P effect can be measured in several ways, but,in all cases, two electrodes are used to introducecurrent into the ground, setting up an electric po-tential field. Two additional electrodes are used,usually spaced some distance away, to detect the1P effect. This effect is caused by ions under theinfluence of the potential field moving from the sur-rounding electrolyte (groundwater onshore, sea-water in the seabed sediments) onto local mineral-grain interfaces and being adsorbed there. Whenthe potential field is suddenly shut off, there is afinite decay time when these ions bleed back intothe electrolyte, similar to a capacitor in an electriccircuit.

If perfected for offshore use, the reconnaissancemode of 1P may enable investigators to determineif polarizable minerals are present, although notprecisely what kind they are (although ilmenite andsome base metal sulfides, especially pyrite and chal-copyrite, have a significant 1P effect, so do certainclays and sometimes graphite). In the reconnais-sance mode, the 1P streamer can be towed froma ship; as seawater is highly conductive, it is notnecessary to implant the 1P electrodes on the sea-floor. Consequently, it is ‘‘theoretically possible tocover more terrain with 1P measurements in a weekoffshore than has been done onshore by geophysi-cists worldwide in the last 30 years."61 Best resultsare produced when the electrodes are towed 1 to2 meters off the bottom (although before 1P explo-ration becomes routine, a better cable depressor andmore abrasion-resistant cables will have to be de-veloped). Electrodes spaced 10 meters apart enablepenetration of sediments to a depth of about 7meters. The current USGS system is designed towork in maximum water depths of 100 meters.

“J. C. Wynn and A.E. Grosz, ‘ ‘Application of the Induced Polari-zation Method to Offshore Placer Resource Exploration, Proceed-ings, Offshore Technology Conference 86, May 5-8, 1986, Houston,TX, OTC 5199, pp. 395-401.


Figure 4-11 .—Conceptual Design of the Towed-Cable-Array Induced Polarization System

Induced polarization, used for many years onshore, is currently being adapted for use at sea to search for titanium placers.

SOURCE: Wynn and A.E. Grosz, “’Application of the Induced Polarization Method to Offshore Placer Resource Exploration, ”Proceedings, Offshore TechnologyConference S6, May 5-8, 1986, Houston, TX (OTC 5199), p. 399.

When polarizable minerals are located, there issome hope that a related method, spectral inducedpolarization (which requires a stationary ship), maybe able to discriminate between the various sourcesof the 1P effect, It has been demonstrated that cer-tain onshore titanium minerals (e. g., ilmenite andaltered ilmenite) have strong and distinctive 1P sig-natures, and that these signatures can be used inthe field for estimating volumes and percentagesof these minerals. 62 One factor complicating inter-pretation of the spectral 1P signature for ilmenitecould be the degree of weathering. More work isrequired to determine if spectral 1P works as welloffshore as it does onshore. If so, it may be possi-ble to survey large areas of the EEZ using recon-

E. and V. M. Foscz, ‘‘Induced Response of Titanium-Bearing Placer Deposits in the

States, ” Open-File Report 85-756 (Washington, DC: U.S.Geological Survey, 1985).

naissance and spectral 1P. Sampling then could beguided in a much more efficient manner. 63

The applicability of 1P to placers other than tita-nium-bearing sands has not been demonstrated, butUSGS researchers also believe that it may be pos-sible, by recalibrating 1P equipment, to identify andquantify other mineral sands. Experiments are nowbeing designed to determine if 1P methods can beused to identify gold and platinum sands. 64 The ap-plicability of 1P techniques to marine sulfide de-posits and to manganese-cobalt crusts, too, has yetto be demonstrated. USGS researchers hope to ac-quire samples of both types of deposits to performthe necessary laboratory measurements.

and Grosz, “Applications of the Induced PolarizationMethod, ” p. 397.

WA. Eastern Mineral Resources, USGS, telephone conver-sation with W. Westermeyer, OTA, Apr. 8, 1986.


Induced Polarization for Core Analysis

Another interesting possibility now being in-vestigated is to use 1P at sea to assay full-lengthvibracore samples. Many techniques can assist ge-ologists and mineral prospectors in identifyingpromising areas for mineral accumulations. Never-theless, to determine precisely what minerals arepresent and in what quantities, it is still necessaryto do laborious, expensive site-specific coring. More-over, once a core is obtained, it often takes manyhours to analyze its constituents, and much of thiswork must be done in shore-based laboratories.

To explore a prospective offshore mine sitethoroughly, hundreds or even thousands of coresamples would be needed. Geologists need analyti-cal methods that would enable them to quickly iden-tify and characterize deposits. USGS researchershave begun to insert 1P electrodes into unopenedvibracores to determine the identity and propor-tion of polarizable minerals present. Such a pro-cedure can be done in about 20 minutes and cantherefore save considerable time and expense. Ifthe analysis showed interesting results, the shipcould immediately proceed with more detailed cor-ing (shore-based analysis of cores precludes revisit-ing promising sites on the same voyage).

Geochemical Techniques

Water Sampling

Measurement of geochemical properties of thewater column is a useful exploration method fordetecting sulfide-bearing hydrothermal dischargesat active ridge crests.

65 Some techniques have beendeveloped for detecting geochemical anomalies inthe water column 500 kilometers (310 miles) ormore from active vent sites. Used in combinationwith geophysical and geological methods, thesetechniques help researchers “zero in’ on hydro-thermal discharges. Other geochemical methods areused to sense water column properties in the im-mediate vicinity of active vent sites.

Reconnaissance techniques include water sam-pling for particulate metals, elevated values of dis-solved manganese, and the helium-3 isotope. Ironand manganese adsorbed on weak acid-soluble par-

c~Rona, ‘‘ Exploration for Hydrothermal Mineral Deposits, pp.7-37.

ticulate matter have been detected 750 kilometers(465 miles) from the vent from which they were is-sued. Total dissolvable manganese is detectable sev-eral tens of kilometers from active hydrothermalsources. Methane, which is discharged as a dis-solved gas from active vent systems, can be detectedon the order of several kilometers from a vent site.66

Analysis of water samples for methane has theadvantage that it can be done aboard ship in lessthan an hour. Analysis for total dissolvable man-ganese requires about 10 hours of shipboard time.

At a distance of 1 kilometer or less from an ac-tive vent, the radon-222 isotope and dissolved me-tals also may be detected. The radon isotope pro-duced by uranium series decay in basalt, reachesthe seafloor through hydrothermal circulation andcan be sampled close to an active vent. Helium-3derived from degassing of the mantle beneathoceanic crust and entrained in subseafloor hydro-thermal convection systems may be detectable inthe vicinity of active vents. Other near-field watercolumn measurements which may provide evidenceof the proximity of active vents include measure-ments of light scattering due to suspended partic-ulate matter, temperature, thermal conductivity,and salinity. Light scattering and temperature ob-servations proved to be very useful in identifyinghydrothermal plumes along the southern Juan deFuca Ridge. 67

Geochemical properties of the water column aremeasured using both deep-towed instrument pack-ages and ‘‘on-station’ sampling techniques. Forexample, NOAA’s deep-towed instrumented sled,SLEUTH has been used to systematically surveyportions of the Juan de Fuca Ridge. Measurementsmade by SLEUTH sensors over the ridge crestwere supplemented by on-station measurements upto 100 kilometers off the ridge axis. 68 Similar sur-veys have been made over the Mid-Atlantic Ridge69

and elsewhere. The sensitivity and precision of in-struments used to acquire geochemical informationcontinues to improve. Perhaps as importantly,

bbIbid.6TE.T, Baker, J .W. Lavdle, and G.*J. Massoth, ‘‘ H}drorhermal

Particle Plumes Cher the Southern Juan de Fu~a Ridge, Nature,

vol. 316, July 25, 1985, p, 342.b81bid.cgp, A. Rona, G. Klinkhammer, T.A. Nelsen, J. H. Trefcy, and

H. Elder!ield, ‘ ‘Black Smokers, Massive Sulfides, and Vent Biota atthe Mid-Atlantic Ridge, ” Nature, vol. 321, Ma} 1, 1986, p. 33.


towed instrument packages like SLEUTH are en-abling systematic surveys of large ocean areas tobe undertaken.

Nuclear Methods

Nuclear methods consist of physical techniquesfor studying the nuclear or radioactive reactions andproperties of substances. Several systems have beendeveloped to detect the radiation given off by suchminerals as phosphorite, monazite, and zircon. Onesuch device was developed by the Center for Ap-plied Isotope Studies (CAIS) at the University ofGeorgia. In the mid-1970s, the Center developedan underwater sled equipped with a radiation de-tector that is pulled at about 3 knots over relativelyflat seabed terrain. The towed device consists of afour-channel analyzer that detects potassium-40,bismuth-214, thallium-208, and total radiation. Thesled has been used to locate phosphorite off the coastof Georgia by detecting bismuth-214, one of theradioactive daughters of uranium, often a constit-uent of phosphorite. In another area offshore Geor-gia, the Center’s towed sled detected thallium-208,an indicator of certain heavy minerals. Subsequentacquisition of surficial samples (grab samples) ofthe area confirmed the presence of heavy mineralsands. 70

A similar system for detecting minerals associ-ated with radioactive elements has been developedby Harwell Laboratory in the United Kingdom.The Harwell system identifies and measures threeprincipal elements: uranium, thorium, and potas-sium. The seabed probe resembles a snake and istowed at about 4 knots in water depths up to 400meters (1, 300 feet). The Harwell system is nowcommercially available and is being offered by Brit-ish Oceanics, Ltd., as part of its worldwide surveyservices .71

A second type of nuclear technique with prom-ise for widespread application in marine mineralexploration uses X-ray fluorescence to rapidly ana-lyze surface sediments aboard a moving ship. Themethod was developed by CAIS and uses X-rayfluorescence as the final step. X-ray fluorescence

is a routine method used in chemical analyses ofsolids and liquids. A specimen to be analyzed usingthis technique is irradiated by an intense X-raybeam which causes the elements in the specimento emit (i. e., fluoresce) their characteristic X-rayline spectra. The elements in the specimen maybeidentified by the wavelengths of their spectrallines. 72

The CAIS Continuous Seafloor Sediment Sam-pler was originally developed for NOAA’s use inrapid sampling of heavy metal pollutants in near-shore marine sediments. A sled is pulled along theseafloor at about three knots. The sled disturbs thesurficial sediments, creating a small sedimentplume. The plume is sucked into a pump systemwithin the sled and pulled to the surface as a slurry.The slurry is further processed, after which smallportions are collected on a continuous filter paper.After the water is removed, a small cookie-like wa-fer remains on the paper (hence, the system isknown as the ‘‘cookie maker’ ‘). ‘ ‘Cookies’ arecoded for time, location, and sample number andcan be made about every 30 seconds, which, at aship speed of 3 knots, is about every 150 feet. AnX-ray fluorescence unit is then used to analyze thesamples. It is possible to analyze three or four ele-ments aboard ship and approximately 40 elementsin a shore-based laboratory. The system has beendesigned to operate in water 150 feet deep but couldbe redesigned to operate in deeper water.73

The cookie maker can increase the speed of ma-rine surveys. Not only are samples quickly obtainedbut preliminary analysis of the samples is availablewhile the survey is still underway. Availability ofreal-time data that could be used for making ship-board decisions could significantly improve the effi-ciency of marine surveys. One current limitationis that samples are only obtainable from the top 3or 4 centimeters of sediment. Researchers believethat some indication of underlying deposits may beobtained by sampling the surfacial sediments, butfurther tests are needed to determine if the tech-nique also can be used for evaluating the composi-tion of deeper sediments.

70J. Noakes, Center for Applied Isotope Studies, OTA Workshopon Site-Specific Technologies for Exploring the Exclusive EconomicZone, Washington, DC, July 16, 1986.

7“’Radiometric Techniques for Marine Mineral Survey s,” WorldDredging and Marine Construction, Apr. 1, 1983, p. 208.

~zEncyc]opedia of Science and Technolo~, 5th ed. , (New York,NY: McGraw-Hill, 1982), p. 741.

73J. Noakes, OTA Workshop on Site-Specific Technologies for Ex-ploring the Exclusive Economic Zone, Washington, DC, July 16, 1986.


A third type of nuclear technique, neutron acti-vation analysis, has been used with some successto evaluate the components of manganese nodulesfrom the deep seafloor.

74 The technique consists of

irradiating a sample with neutrons, using califor-nium-252 as a source. Gamma rays that are emittedas a result of neutron interactions then can be ana-lyzed. Ideally, the identification and quantificationof elements can be inferred from the spectral in-tensities of gamma ray energies that are emittedby naturally occurring and neutron-activated radi-oisotopes.

75 Although the neutron activation tech-

nique can be used at sea to obtain chemical analy-ses of many substances, its use is limited by thedifficulty of taking precise analytical weights at sea.The X-ray fluorescence method has proven botheasier to use at sea and less expensive.

Manned Submersibles and RemotelyOperated Vehicles

Both manned and remotely operated vehicles(ROVs) have been working in the EEZ for manyyears. One characteristic that all undersea vehicles— ----- -

741bid.75A BOrChOle Probe for In Situ Neutron ~ctitrat;on Anal) ’sis, Open

File Report 132-85 (Washington, DC: U S. Bureau of Mines, June1984), p. 8.

share is the ability to provide the explorer with adirect visual or optical view of objects in real-time.Another common characteristic is that undersea ve-hicles operate at very slow speeds relative to surface-oriented techniques. Indeed, a great deal of thework for which undersea vehicles are designed isaccomplished while remaining stationary to exam-ine or sample an object with the vehicles manipu-lators. As a consequence, neither manned nor un-manned vehicles are cost-effective if they areemployed in large area exploration. Their best ap-plication is in performing very detailed explorationof small areas or in investigating specific charac-teristics of an area.

All manned submersibles carry a crew of at least1 and as many as 12, one of which is a pilot. Mostof the many types of manned submersibles arebattery-powered and free-swimming; others aretethered to a surface support craft from which theyreceive power and/or life support (tables 4-5 and4-6) . A typical untethered, battery-poweredmanned submersible is Alvin which carries a crewof three (one pilot; two observers); its maximumoperating depth is 4,000 meters (13,000 feet).

ROVs are unmanned vehicle systems operatedfrom a remote station, generally on the sea surface.There are five main categories of ROVs:

Table 4-5.—U.S. Non-Government Submersibles (Manned)

Date Operating Power Crew/ Manipulators/Vehicle built Length (ft) depth (ft) supply observers viewports Operators

Arms /,//,1// and IV .1976 -1978 8 . 5 3,000 Battery 1/1 3/Bow dome Oceaneering International, Santa Barbara, CAAuguste Piccard ., ,1978 93.5 2,000 Battery 6/3 0/1 Chicago, Inc., Barrington, ILBeaver ... .1968 24.0 2,700 Bat tery 1/4 I/Bow dome International Underwater Contractors, City

Island, NY, NYDeep Q u e s t ,1967 39.9 8,000 Bat tery 2/2 2 / 2 Lockheed Missiles & Space, San Diego, CADelta 1982 15.0 1,000 Battery 1/1 1/19 Marfab, Torrence, CADiaphus ... .,1974 19.8 1,200 Battery 1/1 l/Bow dome Texas A & M University, College Station, TXJim (14 ea) ., .. .,1974 – 1,500 H u m a n 1 / 0 2/1 Oceaneering International, Houston, TXJohnson-Sea-Link I & II . ..1971 22.8 3,000 Battery 1/3 1/Panoramic Harbor Branch Foundation, Ft. Pierce, FL

1975Mermaid II ... .,1972 17.9 1,000 Battery 1/1 l/Bow dome International Underwater Contractors, City

Island, NYNekon B&C ., ., 1968 15.0 1,000 Battery 1/1 l/Bow dome Oceanworks, Long Beach, CA

19701972

P i o n e e r . . . . . . . . , 1 9 7 8 17.0 1,200 Battery 1/2 2/3 Martech International, Houston, TXPisces VI ., 1976 20,0 6,600 Battery 1/2 2/3 International Underwater Contractors, City

Island, NYSnooper ., . ....,1969 14.5 1,000 Battery 1/1 1 /10 Undersea Graphics, Inc., Torrance, CAMakalii ., . .....1966 17,7 1,200 Battery 1/1 1/6 University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HIWasp ., ,1977 – 2,000 Surface 1/10 2/Bow dome Oceaneering International, Houston, TXSOURCE Busby Assooales, Inc. Arlington, VA


Table 4-6.—FederalIy Owned and Operated Submersibles

Date Operating Power Crew/ Manipulators/ Speed (kts) Endurance (hrs)Vessel built Length (ft) depth supply observers view ports cruise/max cruise/max

UNOLSA l v i n . . . . . . . 1 9 6 4 2 5 12,000 Battery 1/2 1/4 1/2 —

NOAAPisces V .. ..1973 2 0 4,900 Battery 1/2 2/3 0.5/2 6/2

NAVYSea Cliff .. ..1968 26 20,000 Battery 2/1 2/5 0.5/2.5 8/2Tur t le . . . . . . .1968 26 10,000 Battery 2/1 2/5 0.5/2.5 8/2NR-1 . . . . . . . .1969 136 — Nuclear 7/— — — —

SOURCE: Busby Associates, Inc., Arlington, VA.

1.

2.3.4.5.

tethered, free-swimming vehicles (the mostcommon);towed vehicles;bottom crawling vehicles;structurally-reliant vehicles; andautonomous or untethered vehicles.

For exploring the EEZ, two types of ROVs ap-pear most appropriate: tethered, free-swimming ve-hicles and towed vehicles (table 4-7). A typicaltethered, free-swimming ROV system is shown infigure 4-12. Typically, vehicles of this type carryone or more closed-circuit television cameras, lights,and, depending on their size, a variety of tools andmonitoring/measuring instrumentation. Almost allof them receive electrical power from a surface sup-port vessel and can maneuver in all directions usingonboard thrusters.

Towed vehicles are connected by a cable to a sur-face ship. Most often these vehicles carry televisioncameras and still cameras. Lateral movement is

Photo credit: Office of Undersea Research, NOAA

The Submersible Alvin and the At/antis //. Alvin is anuntethered, battery-powered manned submersible

capable of operating in 13,000 feet of water.

Table 4-7.—U.S. Government Supported ROVs

Type Depth (ft) Operator

Tethered fnw-swimming:Mini Rover. . . . . . . . . . . . 328ADROV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000Mini Rover MK II, . . . . . . 1,200Pluto, ... . . . . . . . . . . 1,300Snoopy (2). .. .,., . . . . . . . . 1,500Recon IV (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,500Curv II (2) . . . . . . . 2,500URS-1 3,000Super Scorpio (2) . . . . . . . 4,900Deep Drone ., . . . . . 5,400Curv III ... . . . . . . . 10,000Towed:Manta, ., ., 2,100Teleprobe, ., . . . . . . . . 20,000Deep Tow, . . . . . . . . 20,000Argo/Jason . . . . . . . . . . . 20,000ANGUS . . 20,000Katz Fish 2,500STSS ., . . . . . 20,000

Untethered:E a v e E a s t . 150Eave West ... . . . . . 200SPURV 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,000SPURV II . . . . . 5,000UFSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,500

U.S. NavyU.S. NavyNOAAU.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. Navy

NOAA, NMFSU.S. NavyScrippsWoods HoleWoods HoleLamont-DohertyU.S. Navy

University of New HampshireU.S. NavyUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of WashingtonU.S. Navy

SOURCE Busby Associates, Inc , Arlington, Vlrgma

generally attained by maneuvering the towing ves-sel, and depth is controlled by reeling in or reelingout cable from the surface. These vehicles are de-signed to operate within the water column and noton the bottom, but some have been designed andequipped to periodically scoop sediment samplesfrom the bottom.

Advantages and Limitations

Manned submersibles, particularly in the indus-trial arena, have gradually given way to ROVs.The relatively few manned vehicles that have re-mained in service have done so because they offera unique capability which ROVs have yet to dupli-


Figure 4-12.—A Tethered, Free-Swimming Remotely Operated Vehicle System

Vehicles of this type usually carry one or more closed-circuit television cameras, lights, grabbers, and instruments for monitoringand measuring.

SOURCE: Busby Associates, Inc.

cate. Comparisons of the relative advantages and three-dimensional view of the target to be investi-disadvantages of manned submersibles and ROVs gated or worked on. Second, the manipulativeare difficult to make unless a particular task has capability of certain types of manned vehicles is su-been specified and the environment in which it has perior to ROVs. Third, the absence of a drag-pro-to operate is known. The first major advantage of ducing cable connecting the manned submersiblea manned vehicle is that the observer has a direct, to its support ship permits the submersible to oper-


ate within stronger currents and at greater depthsthan most ROVs can presently operate.

Nonetheless, manned submersibles have severaldrawbacks. Most industrial applications requireworking around and within a structure where thepossibility of entanglement/entrapment is oftenpresent and, consequently, human safety is poten-tially in jeopardy. Manned vehicles that operate in-dependently of a surface-connecting umbilical cordcan operate for a duration of 6 to 8 hours beforeexhausting batteries. Even with more electricalpower, there is a limit to how long human oc-cupants can work effectively within the confines ofa small diameter sphere—6 to 8 hours is about thelimit of effectiveness. Relative to ROVs, a mannedsubmersible operation will always be more com-plex, since there is the added factor of providingfor the human crew inside.

The two major advantages of ROVs are that theywill operate for longer durations than manned ve-hicles (limited only by the electrical producing ca-pability of the support ship) and that there is a lowersafety risk for humans. Towed ROVs, for exam-ple, can and do operate for days and even weeksbefore they need to be retrieved and serviced. Themany varieties of ROVs (at least 99 differentmodels produced by about 40 different manufac-turers) permit greater latitude in selecting a sup-port craft than do manned submersibles (which usu-ally have dedicated support vessels). Many ROVs,because of their small size, can access areas thatmanned vehicles cannot. Because ROV data andtelevision signals can be relayed continuously to thesurface in real-time, the number of topside ob-servers participating in a dive is limited only by thenumber of individuals or specialists that can crowdaround one or several television monitors. Depend-ing on the depth of deployment and the type of workconducted, an ROV may incur only a fraction ofthe cost of operating a manned submersible.

Probably the most debated aspect of manned v.unmanned vehicles is the quality of viewing the sub-sea target. There is no question that a televisioncamera cannot convey the information that a hu-man can see directly. Even with the high qualityand resolution of present underwater color tele-vision cameras and the potential for three-dimen-sional television viewing, the image will probably

never equal human observation and the compre-hension it provides. To the scientific observer, di-rect viewing is often mandatory. For the industrialuser, this is not necessarily the case. Some segmentsof industry may be satisfied with what can be seenby television, and, while they would probably liketo see more, they can see well enough with tele-vision to get the job done. The distinction betweenscientific and industrial needs is important becausein large part, it allowed the wide-scale applicationof the ROV, which contributed to the slump inmanned vehicle use.

costs

The cost of undersea vehicles varies as widelyas their designs and capabilities. One of the fewgeneralizations that can be made regarding costsis that they increase in direct proportion to the ve-hicle’s maximum operating depth.

Manned submersibles can cost from as little as$15,000 for a one-person vehicle capable of divingto 45 meters (150 feet) to as much as $5 millionfor an Alvin replacement. A replacement for theJohnson-Sea-Link, which is capable of diving toover 900 meters (3,000 feet), would cost from $1.5million to $2 million. These figures do not includethe support ships necessary to transport and deploythe deeper diving vehicles. Such vessels, if boughtused, would range from $2 million to $3 million;if bought new, they could cost from $8 million to$10 million.

ROVs also range widely in costs. There aretethered, free-swimming models currently availablethat cost from $12,000 to $15,000 per system, reachdepths of 150 and more meters, and provide videoonly. At the other end are vehicles that reach depthsin excess of 2,400 meters, are equipped with a widearray of tools and instrumentation, and cost from$1.5 million to $2 million per system. Intermedi-ate depth (900 meters/3,000 feet) systems equippedwith manipulators, sonars and sensors range from$400,000 to $500,000. Most of the towed vehiclespresently available are deep diving (20,000 feet) sys-tems requiring a dedicated support ship and exten-sive surface support equipment. Such systems startat about $2 million and can, in the case of the towedhybrid systems, reach over $5 million.


The foregoing prices are quoted for new vehi-cles only. However, in today’s depressed offshoreservice market, there are numerous opportunitiesfor obtaining used manned and remotely operatedvehicle systems for a fraction of the prices quotedabove. Likewise, support ships can be purchasedat similar savings. This generalization does not ap-ply to the towed or the hybrid systems, since theywere built by their operators and are not commer-cial vehicles.

Capabilities

The environmental limits within which a vehi-cle can work are determined by such design fea-tures as operating depth, speed, diving duration,and payload. These factors are also an indicationof a vehicle’s potential to carry equipment, The ac-tual working or exploration capabilities of a mannedor unmanned vehicle are measured by the tools,instruments, and/or sensors that it can carry anddeploy. These capabilities are, in large part, de-termined by the vehicle’s carrying capacity (pay-load), electrical supply, and overall configuration.For example, Deep Tow represents one of the mostsophisticated towed vehicles in operation. Its equip-ment suite includes virtually every data-gatheringcapability available for EEZ exploration that canbe used with this type of vehicle. On the other hand,there are towed vehicles with the same depth ca-pability and endurance as Deep Tow but whichcannot begin to accommodate the vast array of in-strumentation this vehicle carries, due to their de-sign. Table 4-8 is a current worldwide listing oftowed vehicles and the instrumentation they are de-signed to accommodate. Towing speed of these ve-hicles ranges from 2 to 6 knots.

Tethered, free-swimming ROVs offer anotherexample of the wide range in exploration capabil-ities available in today’s market. Vehicles with themost basic equipment in this category have at leasta television camera and adequate lighting for thecamera (although lighting may sometimes be op-tional). However, there is an extensive variety ofadditional equipment that can be carried, TheROV Solo, for example, is capable of providingreal-time observations via its television camera,photographic documentation with its still camera,short-range object detection and location by itsscanning sonar, and samples with its three-function

grabber (i. e., manipulator). The vehicle is alsoequipped for conducting bathymetric surveys. As-suming it is supported by an appropriate subseanavigation system, it can provide:

●

●

●

●

●

●

a high-resolution topographic profile map onwhich the space between sounding lanes isswept and recorded by side-looking sonar,a sub-bottom profile of reflective horizons be-neath the vehicle,a chart of magnetic anomalies along the trackscovered,television documentation of the entire track,selective stereographic photographs of objectsor features of interest, andthe capability to stop and sample at the sur-veyor’s discretion.

With adequate equipment on the vehicle andsupport ship and the proper computer programs,the entire mapping program, once underway, canbe performed automatically with little or no humaninvolvement. At least a dozen more competitivemodels exist that can be similarity equipped.

In addition to ROVs of the Deep Tow and Soloclass, several vehicles have been designed to con-duct a single task rather than multiple tasks. Onesuch vehicle is the University of Georgia’s Con-tinuous Seafloor Sediment Sampler, discussedearlier in the section on nuclear methods.

Untethered, manned vehicles are, for the mostpart, equipped with at least one television camera,still camera, side-looking sonar, and manipulator,and with pingers or transponders compatible withwhatever positioning system is being used. The ab-sence of an umbilical cable has an advantage thatreceived little attention until the Challenger spaceshuttle tragedy in 1986. Challenger’s debris wasscattered under the Atlantic Ocean’s Gulf Stream,which flows at maximum speed on the surface butdecreases to less than 0.25 knot at or near the bot-tom. Once the manned submersibles used in thesearch descended below the swift flowing surfacewaters (upwards of 3 knots), they worked and ma-neuvered without concern for the current. TheROVs used, on the other hand, were all tethered,and, even though the vehicle itself might be oper-ating within little or no discernible current, the um-bilical had to contend with the current at all times.This caused considerable difficulty at times duringthe search operation.


Table 4-8.—Worldwide Towed Vehicles

DepthVehicle (ft.) Instrumentation Operator

ANGUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 ,000

Brut /V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900

CSA/STCS . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000CSA/UTTS. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,150

Deep Challenger . .....20,000

Deep Tow . ...........20,000

Deep Tow SurveySystem . ...........20,000

DSS-125 (4 each) . .....20,000

Manta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,132

Nodule CollectionVehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . NA

Ocean Rover . . . . . . . . . 1,000

OFOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 ,000

Raie // . ..............20,000

Sea Bed 2. . . . . . . . . . . . 6,500

Sea Kite . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000

Sound (b each)... . ....13,000

STSS . . . . . . . . . . . . ....20,000

Teleprobe . ...........20,000

Turn s . . . . . . .. . ......20,000

Still camera w/strobe, echo sounder,tem-perature sensor

TV camera w/light, still camera w/strobe,automatic altitude control

TV w/lightTV w/lights, still camera w/strobe, al-

timeterTV w/lights, still camera w/strobe, side-

Iooking sonar, sub-bottom profiler,depth/altitude sensor, C/T/D sensors

Slow-scan TV w/ strobe illumination, echosounder, side-looking sonar, scanningsonar, magnetometer, stereo camera sys-tem, C/T/D sensors, transponder

TV w/ light, still camera w/ strobe, side-Iooking sonar, magnetometer sub-bottomprofiler, current meter, altitude/depthsensor

TV w/ light, still camera w/ strobe, magnet-ic compass

TV w/ lights, still camera w/ strobe, side-Iooking sonar, C/T/D sensors

Cutting and pumping devices to collectnodules for transport to surface

TV on pan/tilt w/ light, still camera w/strobe, depth and speed sensor

Color TV and three still cameras w/ ap-propriate lighting

Still cameras w/ strobe echo sounder, pres-sure/depth sensor, transponder

Side-looking sonar (6km swath), sub-bottomprofiIer

TV, still camera, pipe, tracker, scanningsonar, side-looking sonar, sub-bottomprofiler, magnetometer

TV w/ light, still camera w/ strobe, side-Iooking sonar, magnetometer, seismicprofiler

TV w/ light, still camera w/ strobe, scan-ning sonar, side-looking sonar, alti-tude/depth sonar, transponder

TV w/ light, stereocameras w/ strobes,magnetometer, side-looking, alti-tude/depth sonar

TV w/ light, stereocameras w/ strobe, scan-ning sonar, side-looking sonar, mag-netometer, manipulator

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,Woods Hole, MA, USA

Biological Station, St. Andrews, NewBrunswick, NS, Canada

Continental Shelf Associates, Jupiter, USAContinental Shelf Associates, Jupiter, USA

Japan Marine Science & TechnologyCenter, Yokosuka, Japan

Marine Physical Laboratory, Scripps Institu-tion of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA

Lockheed Ocean Laboratory, San Diego,CA, USA

Japanese and West German industrialfirms.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Pas-cagoula, MS, USA

National Research Institution forResources & Pollution, Japan

Seametrix Ltd., Aberdeen, Scotland

Preussag Meerestechnik, Hannover, WestGermany

IFREMER, Brest, France

Huntec, Ltd. Scarborough, Ontario,Canada

Blue Deep Sari, Valmondois, France

Institute of Oceanology, Moscow, USSR

Submarine Development Group One, U.S.Navy, San Diego, CA, USA

U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, Bay St.Louis, MS, USA

Royal British Navy

SOURCE: Busby Associates, Inc., Arlington, Virginia.

Very little work using manned or ROVs has been and a wide variety of other tasks. Scientific appli-done solely for exploration purposes. In the indus- cation of undersea vehicles has been almost alwaystrial arena, the work has been in support of offshore directed at studying a particular phenomenon oroil and/or gas operations, including pipeline and aspect of an ecosystem. In only a few instances havecable route mapping and inspection, bottom site undersea vehicles been used to verify the data col-surveying, structural inspection and maintenance, lected by surface-oriented techniques.

Ch. 4—Technologies for Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone . 151

Hard mineral exploration, however, is a taskwell-suited for manned vehicles and tethered, free-swimming ROVs. A wide array of manipulator-held sampling equipment for these vehicles has beendeveloped over the past two decades. This samplingcapability ranges from simple scoops to gather un-consolidated sediment to drills for taking hard-rockcores. Present undersea vehicles cannot, however,collect soft sediment cores much beyond 3 feet inlength or hard-rock cores more than a few inchesin length,

The Continuous Seafloor Sediment Sampler isan example of a specially designed vehicle. Vehi-cles of this type might find extensive applicationin the EEZ by providing relatively rapid mineralassays of the bottom within areas of high interest.If supported with appropriate navigation equip-ment, a surficial mineral constituent chart couldbe developed fairly rapidly. Due to the vehicle’spresent design, such a map could only be made overbottoms composed of unconsolidated, fine-grainedsediments.

A recent example of a vehicle application was thesearch for and subsequent examination of the RMSTitanic, which sank in the Atlantic in 1912. Thevessel was thought to be somewhere within a 120-square-nautical-mile area. A visual search with anundersea vehicle could literally take years to com-plete at the 4,000-meter (13,000-foot) depths inwhich she lay. Instead, the area was searched usinga side-looking sonar which detected a target of likelyproportions after about 40 days of looking. To ver-ify that the target was the Titanic, the towed vehi-cle ANGUS was dispatched with its television andstill cameras. The next step, to closely examine thevessel, was done with the manned vehicle Alvin andthe tethered, free-swimming ROV Jason Junior(JJ). Alvin provided the means to ‘ ‘home on’ andboard the vessel, while JJ provided the means toexplore the close confines of the vessel’s interior.

The search for the space shuttle Challenger de-bris is another example of the division of labor be-tween undersea vehicles and over-the-side tech-niques. Since the debris was scattered over manysquare miles and intermixed with debris from othersources, it would have taken months, perhaps years,to search the area with undersea vehicles. Instead,as with the Titanic, side-looking sonar was used

to sweep the area of interest and likely targets wereplotted to be later identified by manned and un-manned vehicles. The same vehicles were subse-quently used to help in the retrieval of debris. Onceagain, the large area was searched with the morerapid over-the-side techniques while precision workwas accomplished with the slower moving under-sea vehicles.

These two examples suggest that the main roleof undersea vehicles in the EEZ is and will be toprovide the fine details of the bottom. A typical ex-ploration scenario might begin with bottom cov-erage with a wide-swath side-looking sonar, likeGLORIA, progress to one of the midrange side-looking sonars or a Sea Beam-type system, and endwith deployment of a towed vehicle system or atethered, free-swimming ROV or manned sub-mersible to collect detailed information.

Needed Technical Developments

Thanks to technological advances in offshore oilexploration, the tools, vehicles, and support systemsavailable to the EEZ minerals explorer have increaseddramatically in numbers and types since the 1960s.It would appear that adequate technology now ex-ists to explore selected areas within the EEZ usingundersea vehicles. But, as with offshore oil, someof these assets will probably prove to be inadequatewhen they are used for hard mineral explorationinstead of the tasks for which they were designed,Identification of these shortcomings is probably bestaccomplished by on-the-job evaluation.

More than likely, whatever technological im-provements are made will not be so much to thevehicles themselves but to the tools and instrumen-tation aboard the vehicles that collect the data.Hence, it is important to identify precisely the data-collecting requirements for hard mineral explora-tion and mining. Potential discovery of new under-water features, processes, and conditions must alsobe anticipated. For example, prior to 1981, noth-ing was known of the existence of deepwater ventsor of the existence of the animals that inhabit theseareas. Once the vents and their associated faunawere discovered, tools and techniques for their in-vestigation were developed as necessary.

Certain aspects of undersea vehicles and theirequipment are perennial candidates for improve-



Underwater camera system, ready for deployment

ment. These include, but are not limited to, broaderbandwidths for television signals, greater manipula-tive dexterity and sensory perception, and moreprecise station-keeping and control of the vehicleitself. The advent of the microprocessor has intro-duced other candidates: artificial intelligence, pat-tern recognition, teach/learn programs, greatermemory, all of which can serve to improve the ca-pability of the vehicles and their accompanying sen-sors and tools. There is no question that theseaspects of vehicle technology are worthy of consid-eration and that they will undoubtedly improve ourunderwater exploration capability. But before ad-ditional development or improvement of underseavehicle technology for EEZ hard minerals explo-ration begins, it may be more important to assessfully the applicability of the currently available tech-nology.

Optical Imaging

Optical images produced by underwater camerasand video systems are complementary to the imagesand bathymetry provided by side-looking sonarsand bathymetry systems. Once interesting features

have been identified using long-range reconnaissancetechniques, still cameras and video systems can beused for closeup views. Such systems can be usedto resolve seafloor features on the order of 10 centi-meter to 1 meter. The swath width of imaging sys-tems depends on such factors as the number of cam-eras used, the water characteristics, and the heightof the imaging system above the seafloor. Swathsas wide as 200 meters are currently mappable.

ANGUS (Acoustically Navigated UnderwaterSurvey) is typical of many deep-sea photographicsystems. Basically, ANGUS consists of three 35-millimeter cameras and strobe lights mounted ona rugged sled. The system is towed approximately10 meters off the bottom in water depths up to 6,000meters (19,700 feet), and is capable of taking 3,000frames per sortie. It has been used in conjunctionwith dives of the submersible Alvin.

A newer system, currently under developmentat the Deep Submergence Laboratory (DSL) atWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is Argo.On her maiden voyage in September 1985 Argoassisted in locating the Titanic. Like ANGUS, Argois capable of operating in water depths of 6,000meters. Argo, however, is equipped with a wide-area television imaging system integrated with side-looking sonar.

76 It currently uses three low-light-level, silicon-intensified target cameras (one for-ward-looking, one down-looking, and one down-looking telephoto), extending the width of the im-aged swath to 56 meters (184 feet) when towed atan altitude of 35 meters.

Argo is being designed to accommodate a sec-ond ROVs, to be known as Jason. Jason will bea tethered robot capable of being lowered from Argoto the seafloor for detailed camera (and sampling)work (figure 4-13). Its designers plan to equip Ja-son with stereo color television ‘‘eyes." 77 One cur-rent limitation is the lack of availability of an ade-quate transmission cable for the color televisionpictures. Color television transmissions exceed 6million bits per second, and large bandwidth ca-bles capable of carrying this amount of informa-tion have not yet been developed for marine use.Fiber-optic cables are now being designed for this

Harris and K. “Argo: Capabilities for Deep OceanExploration, vol. 28, No. 4, 1985/86, p. 100.

77R. D. Ballard, ‘ ‘Argo-Jason, Oceans, March 1983, p. 19.


Figure 4-13.—Schematic of the Argo-Jason Deep-Sea Photographic System

The Argo-Jason system is currently under development at Woods Hole’s Deep Submergence Laboratory. Argo has alreadyassisted in locating the Titanic. Jason is being designed to be launched from Argo and will handle detailed camera work.

SOURCE: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

and related marine data transmission needs. How- The current subject-to-lens range limit for opti-ever, before fiber-optic cables can be employed, cal imaging is 30 to 50 meters in clear water. Sev-problems of handling tensional stress and repeated eral improvements are expected in the future thatflexing of the cable must be overcome. Personnel may enable subjects to be imaged as far as 200at DSL believe that when the Argo-Jason system meters from the lens under optimal viewing con-is fully developed, the need for manned submersi- ditions. For instance, work is underway to increasebles will be much reduced. the sensitivity of film to low light levels. A 200,000

72-672 0 - 87 -- 6


ASA equivalent speed film was used to take pic-tures of the Titanic under more than 2 miles ofwater. Higher film speed ratings, perhaps as highas 2 million ASA equivalent, will enable picturesto be taken with even less light. Improved lightingwill also help. The optimal separation between cam-era and light in the ocean is about 40 meters, whichsuggests that towed light sources could provide anadvantage. Use of polarization filters can also helpincrease viewing potential. Gated light sources,which emit short pulses of light, will be more ex-pensive to develop. Development of a technique toopen the camera shutter at the precise time thegated light illuminates the subject will help reducescattering of the reflected light. 78

Direct Sampling by Coring, Drilling,and Dredging

Once a prospective site is located using geophysi-cal and/or other reconnaissance methods, directsampling by coring, drilling, or dredging (as appro-priate) is required to obtain detailed geologicalinformation. Direct sampling provides ‘‘groundtruth’ correlation with indirect exploration meth-ods of the presence (and concentration) or absenceof a mineral deposit. The specific composition ofa deposit cannot be determined without taking sam-ples and subjecting them to geochemical analyses.Representative sampling provides potential minerswith information about the grade of deposit, whichis necessary to decide whether or not to proceedwith developing a mine site.

Placer Deposits

The state-of-the-art of sampling marine placersand other unconsolidated marine sediments is moreadvanced than that of sampling marine hard-rockmineral deposits such as cobalt crusts and massivesulfides. There are various methods for samplingunconsolidated sediments in shallow water, whereastechnology for sampling crusts and sulfides in deepwater is only now beginning to be developed. Twosignificant differences exist between sampling placerdeposits and marine hard-rock deposits. One is thegreater depth of water in which crusts and sulfides

T8R. B~]ard, Deep Submergence Laboratory, Woods Hole Oceano-graphic Institution, OTA Workshop on Technologies for Surveyingand Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone, June 10, 1986.

occur. The other is the relative ease of penetratingplacers.

Grab samplers obtain samples in the upper fewcentimeters of surfacial sediments. For obtaininga sample over a thicker section of sediments andpreserving the sequence of sedimentary layers,vibracore, gravity, piston, and other coring devicesare used. These corers are used to retrieve relativelyundisturbed samples that may indicate the concen-tration of minerals by layer and the thickness ofthe deposit. On the other hand, to determine theaverage grade of ore at a particular site and for usein processing studies, large bulk samples obtainedby dredging (including any waste material or over-burden), rather than undisturbed cores, may besufficient.

The characteristics of a sampling device appro-priate for a scientific sampling program are not nec-essarily appropriate for proving a mine site. In or-der to establish tonnage and grade to prove a minesite, thousands of samples may be required. It isessential that the sampling device provide consist-ently representative samples at a reasonable cost.The ability to carry out commercial-scale sampling,required to define an ore body, in water deeper thanabout 60 feet is still very limited. Scientific sam-pling can be done in deeper water, but as table 4-9indicates, sampling costs rapidly escalate with waterdepth. The costs of sampling in deeper water prob-ably will have to be reduced significantly beforecommercial development in these areas can takeplace.

Only a few areas within the U.S. Exclusive Eco-nomic Zone have been systematically sampled inthree dimensions. Much of the data collected to datehave been from surface samples and hence are notreliable for use in quantitative assessments. 79 Ade-quate knowledge of the mineral resource potentialof the EEZ will require extensive three-dimensionalsampling in the most promising areas.

Several factors, as suggested above, are impor-tant in evaluating the performance of a placer sam-pling system80 (in general, these factors are equally

79see, for ~xample, Clifton and L u e p k e , ‘ ‘ H e a v y M i n e r a l ‘lacer

Deposits.80B. Dimock, “An Assessment of Alluvial Sampling Systems for

Offshore Placer Operations, Report, Ocean Mining Division, Re-source Evaluation Branch, Energy, Mines, and Resources Canada,January 1986.

—

Ch. 4—Technologies for Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone ● 1 5 5

Table 4-9.—Vibracore Sampling Costsa

Shallow water Deep water

Water depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Type of coring equipment . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of cores in program . . . . . . . . .Depth of penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Type of vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mobilization/demobilization cost . . . . . .Vessel cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coring equipment and operating crew .Contingency funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cost per core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30-60 feetVibracorer

5020 feet100- to 150-foot open deck work boat,

twin screw equipped with A-frameand double point mooring gear

$25,000$50,000 (10 days at $5,000 per day;

assumes 6 cores per day; 30°/0downtime for weather)

$30,000 (10 days at $3,000 per day)$25,000

$130,000$2.600

200 to 300 feetVibracorer (equipped for deep water

operation)5020 feet150- to 200-foot open deck work boat,

twin screw, equipped with A-frameand double point mooring gear

$50,000$160,000 (20 days at $8,000 per day;

assumes 3 cores per day; 30%down time for weather)

$100,000 (20 days at $5,000 per day)$25,000$335,000$6,700

%osts do not include core analysis and program management.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.

applicable to technologies for sampling massive sul-fides and cobalt crusts). The representativeness ofthe sample is very important. A sample is repre-sentative if what it contains can be repeatedly ob-tained at the same site. In this regard, the size ofthe sample is important. For example, for mineralsthat occur in low concentrations (e. g., precious me-tals), a representative sample must be relativelylarge. A representative sample for concentratedheavy minerals may be much smaller. The depth ofsediment that a sampling tool is capable of penetrat-ing also affects the representativeness of the sample.

Undisturbed samples are particularly importantfor studying the engineering properties and deposi-tional history of a deposit. They are less importantfor determining the constituents of a deposit.

Other relevant factors affecting sampling per-formance include: the time required to obtain asample; the ease of deploying, operating, andretrieving the sampling device in rough seas; thesupport vessel requirements; and the core storagecapability. Sampling tools that can sample quickly,can continue to operate under adverse conditions,and can be deployed from small ships are preferredwhen the cost of sampling is a significant factor.More often, the solution is a compromise amongthese factors.

Grab and Drag Sampling.—Grab sampling isa simple and relatively inexpensive way of obtain-ing a sample of the top few inches of the seafloor.

With its mechanical jaws, a grab sampler can takea bite of surficial sediment. However, a sample ofsurficial sediment is not likely to be representativeof the deposit as a whole. Buried minerals may bedifferent from surface minerals, or, even if thesame, their abundance may be different. Moreover,the sediments retrieved in a grab sample are dis-turbed. Some of the finer particles may even es-cape as the sample is being raised, particularly ifstones or debris prohibit the jaws from closingproperly.

Notwithstanding their shortcomings, grab sam-ples have helped geologists gain some knowledgeof possible heavy mineral concentrations along theEastern U.S. seaboard. However, grab samplesprovide limited information and are not appropri-ate for detailed, quantitative sampling of a mineraloccurrence. Drag sampling is similar to grab sam-pling in that it is designed to retrieve only samplesfrom the surface. An additional limitation of thistype of sampling is that sample material is retrievedall along the drag track and, therefore, samplingis not representative of a specific site.

Coring and Drilling Devices.—For more quan-titative sampling, numerous types of coring ordrilling technologies have been developed. Impactcorers use gravity or some type of explosive mech-anism to drive a core barrel a short distance intosediment. Percussion drilling devices penetrate sedi-ment by repeated pile driving action. Vibratory


Photo credits: US. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Geological Survey

Chain bag dredge

Dredges Used for Sampling the Seafloor

corers use acoustical or mechanical vibrations topenetrate material .81

An example of an impact coring device is the boxcore. An advantage of this type of sampling sys-tem is that it retrieves relatively undisturbed cores.A disadvantage is that a box corer is capable of sam-pling only the top few feet of an unconsolidated de-posit. It is rarely used in sand because penetrationrequires additional vibratory or percussive action.

Well-known percussion drilling devices includethe Becker Hammer Drill and the Amdril series ofdrills. The Becker drill penetrates sediment usinga diesel-powered hammer that strikes a drill pipe91 times per minute. It also uses reverse circula-tion, meaning that air and/or water is pumpeddown the annulus between the inner and outer drillpipes, continuously flushing sample cuttings to thesurface through the inner pipe.82 Among the advan-tages of the Becker drill are: its capability to re-cover all types of deposits, including gravel, sand,boulders, and clay; its ability to drill in a combineddepth of water and sediments up to about 150 feet;and its capacity to recover representative samples.However, open water use of the Becker drill is slowand relatively expensive.

The Becker drill is rated by some83 as one thebest existing systems for offshore quantitative sam-

Barre Lee, Mining of the Continental

Legal, Technical and Environmental Considerations (Cambridge,MA: Publishing Co., 1978), p.

82 “An Assessment of Alluvial Sampling Systems, p. *31 bid., p. 55,


Photo credit: Bonnie McGregor, U.S. Geological Survey

The box core retrieves relatively undisturbed cores butonly of the first few feet of sediment.

pling of marine placers. It has been widely andreliably used in offshore programs around theworld. Other systems may work well but the Beckerdrill has gained the confidence of investmentbankers, who must know the extent and tenor ofa deposit with a high degree of accuracy before in-vesting money in development. For developingcommercial deposits, it is particularly importantthat the method used be one with a proven record.

The Amdril, available in several different sizes,is another type of percussion drilling device. Un-like the Becker Hammer Drill, Amdrils are sub-mersible and virtually independent of the supportship’s movements. As a result, this drill can oper-ate in much deeper water than the Becker drill.Rather than using the reverse circulation method,an independent pipe supplies air to the casing toraise the drill cuttings. Although the Amdril can-

not sample boulders or bedrock, it is capable ofsampling gravel (unlike vibratory corers) using anairlift system. One type of Amdril has successfullysampled marine sands and gravels off Great Brit-ain.84

A somewhat similar system, the Vibralift, devel-oped by the Mississippi Mineral Resources Insti-tute, has proved successful in sampling a varietyof mineral deposits, including heavy minerals indense and semi-hard material. The Vibralift is ba-sically a counterflush system. It utilizes a dual walldrill pipe driven into the sediment by means of apneumatic vibrator. Water under pressure is in-troduced to the annular space of the dual pipe viaa hose from a shipboard pump and is jetted intothe inner pipe just above the cutting bit. In thisway, the core rising in the inner pipe during thesample drive is broken up by the water jets andtransported up the pipe through a connecting hoseand finally to a shipboard sample processor. Ad-ditional lift is obtained by routing exhaust air fromthe vibrator into the inner pipe. Samples are col-lected in a dewatering box to minimize the loss offine material .85

Several types of vibratory corers have been de-veloped over the years. Designs vary by length ofcore obtained (6 to 12 meters), by core diameter(5 to 15 centimeters), by water depth limits of oper-ation (25 to 1,000 meters), by method of penetra-tion (electric, hydraulic, and pneumatic), by port-ability, etc. Vibratory corers have been widely usedfor scientific and reconnaissance sampling. Thismethod is probably the best low-cost method forcoring sand and gravel deposits. Relatively un-disturbed and representative cores can be retrievedin unconsolidated sediments such as most sands,clay, and gravel. However, the effectiveness ofvibratory corers decreases in dense, fine, relativelyconsolidated sands and in stiff clays. Some progresshas been reported in sampling dense, fine-grained,heavy mineral placers with a jet bit that does notdisturb the core.

86 Vibratory corers will not pene-

trate boulders or shale. This type of sampling de-vice is less expensive and more portable than theBecker Hammer Drill and is, therefore, probably

** Ibid., p. 31. demonstrated at Underwater Mining Institute Con-

ference, MS, November 1986.


Photo source: P. Johnson, Office of Technology Assessment

Vibracore ready for deployment from side of ship.Vibracores can retrieve relatively undisturbed samples

in many types of unconsolidated sediment.

more suitable for reconnaissance work than theBecker drill; however, given limitations in the typeof deposit that can be sampled, vibratory corerswould be less appropriate for proving certain minesites.

Vibracore systems, properly designed and oper-ated, have successfully evaluated thin (i.e., less than12 meters), surficial, unconsolidated deposits offine-to-coarse-grain material, such as sand andgravel, shell, heavy minerals, and phosphorite.Vibratory corers are inadequate for the more dis-seminated precious mineral placers such as gold,platinum, and diamonds, due to system limitationsin sampling host gravels typically containing cob-bles and boulders. Vibratory corers are also use-less for any deposit where the thickness of overbur-den and/or zones of interest exceed the penetrationlimits of the system.

The costs of offshore sampling vary widely, de-pending on such factors as water depth, mobiliza-tion costs, weather, navigation requirements, andvessel size and availability. One of the most im-portant factors in terms of unit costs per core is thescope of the program. Costs per hole for a small-scale program will be higher than costs per hole fora large-scale program. Table 4-9 shows typical costsof offshore vibracore programs in shallow and deepwater. Costs per core are seen to vary betweenabout $2,500 and $7,000.

An alternative or supplementary strategy to tak-ing the large numbers of samples that would beneeded to prove a mine site is to employ a small,easily transportable dredge in a pilot miningproject. Each situation is unique, but for some casesthe dredge may be less expensive and may be bet-ter at reducing uncertainty than coring or drilling.Such a program was recently completed with a pi-lot airlift dredge off the coast of west Africa. Fourtons of phosphorite concentrate were recovered for

87 Dredging would causean economic evaluation.significantly more environmental disruption andmay, unlike other sampling methods, require anenvironmental impact statement.

Crusts

Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts were discov-ered during the 1872-76 expedition of the HMSChallenger, but detailed studies have only recentlybegun, In general, existing coring and other de-vices developed to sample shallow-water placers arenot appropriate for sampling crusts in deep water;therefore, new sampling technologies must be de-veloped. An important consideration in develop-ing new technology is that crusts and underlyingsubstrate are usually consolidated and hard andtherefore not as easily penetrated by either dredgesor coring devices. Moreover, crusts are found atmuch greater depths than most unconsolidated de-posits. The most desirable crusts are believed to oc-cur between 800 and 2,500 meters water depth;thus, sampling equipment must at least be able tooperate as deep as 2,500 meters. Crusts known todate rarely exceed 12 centimeters (5 inches) in thick-ness; therefore, there is no requirement for longsamples.

and D. Bargeron, ‘‘ Exploration for Phosphorite inthe Offshore Area of the Congo, “ Marine Mining, vol. 5, No. 3, 1986,pp. 217-237.


A few small samples of crust have been retrievedusing standard deep-sea dredges. As these dredgesare pulled along the bottom, they are able to dis-lodge chunks of the outcrop or gather already dis-lodged material; however, techniques and technol-ogy for precise, controlled sampling have yet to bedeveloped .88 USGS has identified several needs inquantitative crust sampling and, through its SmallBusiness Innovative Research program, has begunseveral feasibility studies to develop sampling tools.

As an aid in selecting sampling sites and in quan-tifying the volume of crust in a given area, a de-vice that can measure crust thickness is an impor-tant need. Deepsea Ventures, Inc., has completeda conceptual study for such a device for USGS.89

The goal is to develop a tool to measure crust thick-ness continuously and in real-time. Conceptually,a very-high-frequency acoustic-reflection profilerable to detect the crust surface and the interfacebetween crust and host rock would be mountedaboard a sled and, with a video camera, towed 20to 25 centimeters off the seafloor. A continuous sig-nal would be sent to the surface ship via the towcable. An important design consideration is the veryrough terrain in which some cobalt crusts are found.Current design criteria call for the device to oper-ate over relatively smooth areas with less than a20° slope. Although it will not be able to operateon slopes steeper than 200, it is assumed that, atleast initially, any crust mining that does occur willbe done in relatively flat areas.

For quantitative sampling, two types of coringdevices have been proposed and currently are beingdesigned. Deepsea Ventures has developed conceptsfor a special sampling tool for taking an undisturbedsample suitable for studying the engineering prop-erties of crust and underlying rock. 90 This corerwould be capable of cutting a disc-shaped core 56centimeters (22 inches) in diameter by 23 centi-meters (9 inches) thick. The corer and a video cam-era would be mounted on a tripod anchored to the

H. et al. , ‘‘Report of the WorkingGroup Manganese Nodules and Crusts, Marine Minerals:

in Research and Assessment, et at. )(Dordrecht, Holland: 11, Publishing Co,, 1987), NATO ASISeries, p. 24,

89W. Siapno, Consultant, Workshop on Site-Specific for the Economic Zone, Wash

DC, 16, 1986.‘“Ibid.

sea bottom while the core is being cut. This typeof corer would not be useful for detailed mappingof a deposit because the tripod must be lowered,positioned, and raised for each core cut, a processthat would take more than 2 hours in 1,500 metersof water.

A second coring device more appropriate forreconnaissance sampling (and perhaps also forproving a mine site) has been designed and builtby Analytical Services, Inc. (figure 4-14).91 The de-vice is a percussion coring sampler that is designed

Toth, Services, Inc., OTA Workshop on Site-SpecificTechnologies for “Exploring the Exclusive Economic-Zone, ton, DC, July 16, 1986.

Figure 4-14.—Prototype

Frame

Crust Sampler

Triggerassembly

// G i m b a l

Firingplate

Coring devices such as this, designed to be quick and inex-pensive, will be needed for quantitative sampling of crusts

SOURCE: Analytical Services, Inc., CA


Photo credit: Analytical Services, Inc., Cardiff, CA

Prototype crust sampler about to be deployed fromstern of ship.

to collect as many as 30 short cores during eachdeployment. The speed at which samples can betaken and the cost per sample are important de-sign features—especially for corers that are usedin proving a mine site— and this coring operationis designed to be both relatively quick and inex-pensive. Sampling is initiated by a bottom-sensingtrigger that starts a firing sequence. To fire the“gun,” an electric spark ignites the powder. Asmany as four samples may be taken at any one site,after which the system can be lifted from the seabed,moved to another spot, and lowered again. Coresare expected to be 10 to 12 centimeters long (longenough to sample crust and some substrate in mostcases) and 2 centimeters (1 inch) in diameter. Thesystem is designed to operate in water depths of5000 meters. Eventually, a video system, scanningsonar, and thruster will be incorporated into thesystem, enabling the sampler to be steered. Asecond-generation prototype sampler has been builtand was tested in 1987.

Large, bulk samples are required for processingand tonnage/grade studies. To meet these needs,the Bureau of Mines is developing a dredge capa-ble of cutting into crust that maybe similar in prin-ciple to a commercial mining dredge of the future. 92

Current dredges are not designed to cut into crustand substrate. The experimental dredge would the-oretically collect 500 pounds of in situ material ineach pass. Problems were encountered in initial

of Mines, Workshop on Technologies for Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone, Washing-ton, DC, July 16, 1986.

testing of the dredge in rough terrain, but thedredge may be redesigned to better cope with roughseafloor features. The continuous bucket linedredge, used in sampling manganese nodules, isalso proposed to be adapted for bulk sampling ofcrusts.

Polymetallic Sulfides

Massive sulfides have a third dimension thatmust be considered in sampling. At the moment,very little is known about the vertical extent of sul-fide deposits, as drilling them has not been verysuccessful. The problem lies in the absence of suit-able drills .93 Without a sediment overburden of 100meters (328 feet) or so it is difficult to confine thedrill bit at the start of drilling. The state-of-the-artof massive sulfide sampling is demonstrated by thefact that one of the largest samples collected to datewas obtained by ramming a research submersibleinto a sulfide chimney, knocking the chimney over,and picking up the pieces with the submersible’smanipulator arm.

94 Clearly, current bulk and core

sampling methods leave something to be desired,

Recent advances have been made in bare-rockdrilling. For example, one of the main purposes ofLeg 106 of the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) inDecember 1985 was to test and evaluate new bare-rock drilling techniques. Drilling from the ODP’s143 meter (470 foot) drill ship JOIDES Resolutiontook place in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge Rift Valleysome 2,200 kilometers (1 ,200 nautical miles) south-east of Bermuda. The scientists and engineers ofLeg 106 were partly successful in drilling severalholes using such innovative techniques as a hard-rock guide base to confine the drill bit during ini-tial ‘ ‘spud-in, a low-light television camera forimaging the seafloor and for monitoring drillingoperations, and new downhole drilling and coringmotors. The first hole took 25 days to penetrate 33.3meters (1 10 feet) of rock below the seafloor, whilerecovering about 23 percent of the core material .95

M. Edmond, et al., “Report of the WorkingGroup on Marine Sulfides, ” Marine Minerals: Advances in Researchand Resource Assessment, et al. ) Hol-land: D. Publishing Co., 1987), NATO ASI Series, p. 36.

Offshore Minerals Section, Energy, Re-sources Canada, Workshop on Site-Specific Technologies forExploring the Exclusive Economic Zone, Washington, DC, July 16,1986.

S. “Mid-Atlantic Bare-Rock Drilling and Hydrother-mal Vents, Nature, vol. 321, May 1986, pp.


Although improvements in drilling rates and corerecovery are needed, the techniques demonstratedduring Leg 106 open up new possibilities for drillinginto massive sulfides.

In 1989, the JOIDES Resolution is tentativelyscheduled to visit the Juan de Fuca Ridge, thus pro-viding an opportunity to obtain a few cores frommassive sulfide deposits. However, the JOIDESResolution is a large, specially designed drill ship.Its size is governed, in part, by requirements forhandling and storing drilling pipe. Because oper-ating the JOIDES Resolution is expensive, it is noteconomically advantageous for inexpensive explo-ration sampling of massive sulfides in extensiveareas.

An alternative and relatively less expensive ap-proach to using a large and expensive drill ship forhard-rock sampling is to use a remotely operatedsubmersible drill which is lowered by cable froma surface vessel to the seafloor. 96 In addition to

lower cost, the advantages to using this type of drillare the isolation of the coring operation from sea-state-induced ship motions and reduced station-keeping requirements. Maintaining contact witha remotely operated drill while it is drilling remainsdifficult; if the umbilical is jerked during the drillingoperation, the drill can easily jam. Several remotelyoperated drills have been conceived and/or built,as described below.

The drill developed by the Bedford Institutionof Oceanography in Canada has probably had themost experience coring sulfides, although the per-formance of the drill to date has not met its designspecifications. The Bedford drill is electrically pow-ered from the surface and is designed to operatein over 3,500 meters of water. The drill can be de-ployed in winds of 25 to 30 knots and in currentsup to 3 knots. It is designed to cut a core 6 meterslong (extendable another 2.5 meters) with a di-ameter of 2.5 centimeters. A commercial versionof this drill, made by NORDCO of St. John’s,Newfoundland, is now available and has been soldto Australia, India, and Norway .97

WR, petters and M. Williamson, “Design for a Deep-Ocean RockCore Drill, ” Marine Mining, vol. 5, No. 3, 1986, p. 322.

‘ 7 P.J.C. Ryd, “Remote Drilling Technology, Journal of Ma-rine Mining, in press, 1986.

Nine cores drilled through basalt were obtainedwith the Bedford drill in 1983 on the Juan de FucaRidge, but the total core length retrieved was only0.7 meter. 98 Obtaining long cores has been diffi-cult. Drillers have found that competent, unfrac-tured rocks, such as metamorphic or intrusivetypes, yielded the longest cores, while young,glassy, highly fractured basalts were difficult to sam-ple.

99 The massive sulfides themselves are easierto drill than fractured basalts.

Since 1983, the performance of the Bedford drillhas improved. Recently, two cores, each about 1meter long, were retrieved in gabbro. Drilling tookplace at the Kane Fracture Zone. Several foot-longcores containing sulfides also were taken from theEndeavor Segment of the Juan de Fuca Ridge. Me-chanically, the drill has not been changed much,but electronics and control systems are better. Theexperience gained thus far suggests that it is essen-tial to do preliminary reconnaissance work beforeemplacing the drill. During emplacement, a videocamera attached to the drill frame also has provedhelpful, as it lets drillers locate a stable position forthe drill.

Several other remotely controlled drills have beendesigned and/or built. In the early 1970s, WoodsHole Oceanographic Institution built a rock drilldesigned to recover a 1 meter long, 2 centimeterdiameter rock core from water depths as much as4,000 meters. The drill was originally designed tobe deployed from the research submersible Alvinbut was later reconfigured to be deployed from asurface ship. It has not been used extensively. 100

A Japanese firm, Koken Boring & Machine Co.,has built a remote battery-powered drill and usedit successfully in 500 meters of water. NORDCOhas recently developed a sampling system, that, de-pending on its configuration, can be used to sam-ple either sediment or rock. This system was usedin October 1985 to recover eight cores in 800 metersof water off Baffin Island. 101 Finally, design of a

gBH~e Offshore Miner& Section, Energy, Mines, and ResourcesCanada, OTA Workshop on Site-Specific Technologies for Explor-ing the Exclusive Economic Zone, July 1986.

‘gRyaIl, “Remote Drilling Technology. ”10OR E Da\~is D, L. Wil]iams, and R. P. Von Herzen, ‘‘ ARpA

Rock Drill Report, ” Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Tech-nical Report 75-28, June 1975.

‘o’ Ryan, ‘ ‘Remote Drilling Technology. ”


Figure 4=15.-Conceptual Design for Deep OceanRock Coring Drill

An alternative and less expensive approach to using a largeand expensive drill ship for hard rock sampling is to use-aremotely operated submersible drill which is lowered by ca-ble from a surface vessel to the seafloor. (Not to scale).

SOURCES: Williamson & Associates, Inc., and Sound Ocean Systems, Inc.

rock corer was recently started by Sound OceanSystems & Williamson and Associates (figure 4-15) .102 This corer has not been built, but in con-cept it is similar to the Bedford drill. A major differ-ence is that it is designed to core continuously toa depth of 53 meters (175 feet) (by adding core bar-rels from a storage magazine). Alternatively, it canbe configured to recover 40 1.5-meter cores in asingle deployment. A workable system for obtain-ing cores longer than 1 meter would be a signifi-cant advancement. Both ODP and Bedford drillershave experienced jamming beyond the first fewmeters and have not been able to obtain longercores.

Very little sampling of sediment-hosted sulfides(e.g., in the Escanaba Trough off the coast of north-ern California) has been attempted yet. Today’spercussion and vibratory devices rated for deepwater use probably will be suitable for shallow sam-pling of sediment hosted sulfides but not for deeperdrilling. Additional problems may occur if the watertemperature is above 250 ‘C. Hot water couldcause a good core to turn to homogenized muckas a sample is retrieved. Current technology alsois not capable of doing downhole sampling (e. g.,using a temperature probe) if the temperature isabove 250 ºC. If the water temperature is above350 °C, embrittlement of the drill string couldoccur.

and Williamson, “Design for Deep-Ocean Rock CoreDrill. ”

NAVIGATION CONCERNS

Technology for navigation and positioning is es-sential in all marine charting and exploration work.The accuracy required varies somewhat depend-ing on the purpose, but, for most purposes, presenttechnology for navigating and for positioning a shipon the surface is considered adequate. Most seafloorexploration can be done quite well with local sys-tems with internal uncertainties on the order of 10

meters and uncertainties relative to global coordi-nates of a kilometer or so. Use of a navigation sys-tem that can position a ship within 1 kilometer ofa target would enable a ship to return to the im-mediate vicinity of a survey area or mine site, forexample. Use of a system that could reliably posi-tion one within 10 meters relative to local coordi-nates (established, for example, by transponders

Ch. 4—Technologies for Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone ● 1 6 3

placed on the seafloor) would enable one to returnto within visual range to photograph or take sam-ples. 103

Gravity surveys and seismic reflection surveysdo present demanding navigational requirements.For detailed gravity surveys, the velocity of themeasuring instrument must be known with uncer-tainties less than 0.05 meter/second. For seismicwork, the quality of the data is directly related tothe positioning accuracy of the sequence of shotsand the streamer hydrophores. Three-dimensionalseismic surveys for exploration geophysics requirepositioning precision on the order of 10 centimetersover a survey area of about 100 square kilome-ters.104 In some instances (e. g,, determining rela -

tive motion of oceanic plates) accuracy on the or-der of 1 centimeter is important, but explorationtechnologies generally do not require this high de-gree of precision.

Precise positioning and tracking of remote sys-tems, such as towed ‘‘fish’ or ROVs, is also con-sidered challenging. Positioning is usually done byacoustic rather than electromagnetic systems. Longbaseline systems employ three or more fixed-bottomor structure-mounted reference points (e. g., acous-tic transponders), while short baseline systems em-ploy three or more ship-mounted transducers thatreceive an acoustic pulse from a subsea acousticsource. 105

Accurate marine charting requires precise navi-gational control relative to global coordinates. Al-though requirements are stringent, the state-of-the-art is sufficient for producing high-quality bathy-metric charts. The National Ocean Survey (NOS)has established a ‘ ‘circular error of position” stand-ard of 50 meters ( 164 feet) or better (in compliancewith international standards for charting). This isabout the average for survey ships operating be-yond the range at which navigation technologiescan be frequently calibrated. Accuracies of 5 to 10meters are typical with calibrated equipment. 106

101 ~atlona] R escarch Council, ,%door )?c’fc>rrnrd h$Jth?jn,g,kreccfs and OpporfurIIfKs (Wrasllm,gton, 1X;: !Na[ional Acadcmv Press,198:3), p. 6,

‘(J41bid. , pp 8-10,I (J5 Frank Busby., ~rn(jcrst,a L’chjclcs ~irmtor~,- f .98.? (.Ar] lngt O n ,

\’A: Rushy Associates, Inc., 1985), pp. 426-4~()] ObPerry, ‘‘ Nlapping the Exclusi\,c Economic Zone.

NOS, for example, uses ARGO and Raydist sys-tems for charting work within about 120 miles ofthe coast, where these systems may achieve hori-zontal position accuracies of 5 to 10 meters. Theyare cumbersome to use, however, because they re-quire special onshore stations to be set up and mustbe calibrated by a more precise system, such as aline-of-sight system like Mini-Ranger. 107 Beyondabout 120 miles of the coast, these systems are un-able to reliably meet NOAA’s 50-meter standard.Far offshore, only the Global Positioning System(GPS) is capable of meeting the desired accuracyfor charting.

LORAN-C is a commonly used ground-basednavigation system. LORAN-C coverage is avail-able within most of the U.S. EEZ, and it is accuraterelative to global coordinates to within 460 meters.Users who want to return to a site whose coordi-nates have been measured with LORAN-C can ex-pect to return to within 18 to 90 meters (60 to 295feet) of the site using LORAN-C navigation; 18to 90 meters is thus the system’s repeatable ac-curacy. LORAN-C is expected to be phased outonce the GPS is fully operational. However, thisis not expected to occur before 2000. Once GPSis fully operational, plans call for a 15-year transi-tion period during which both LORAN-C and GPSwill be available. A satellite system available for ci-vilian use is TRANSIT. This system is often usedto correct for certain types errors generated byLORAN-C .

GPS is a satellite navigation system intended forworldwide, continuous coverage. When fully de-ployed, the system will consist of 18 satellites andthree orbiting spares. Only six R&D satellites areoperating now, and, due to the interruption in thespace shuttle launch schedule, deployment of theoperational satellites has been delayed about 2years. The system is now scheduled to be fully de-ployed by 1991. Some of the current R&D satel-lites may also be used in the operational system.Costs to use the GPS are expected to be less thancosts to use current systems.

GPS is designed for two levels of accuracy. ThePrecise Positioning Service, limited to the militaryand to users with special permits (NOS, for in-

1 0 71 bid., p, 1192


stance), is accurate to 16 meters or better. GPS ac-curacy to within 10 meters is considered routine.The less precise Standard Positioning Service is pri-marily for civilian use and is accurate to withinabout 100 meters. (Use of GPS, as well as LORAN-C and other systems in the differential mode—inwhich a ground receiver at a known location is usedto check signals and measure range errors, allowshigher accuracies to be achieved but takes much

longer). NOS uses GPS when it can to calibratethe other systems it uses (Raydist and ARGO).GPS is currently available about 4 hours a day;however, it is impractical to go to sea for just theshort period in which the ‘ ‘window’ is open. Con-sequently, in the near term, NOS is focusing itssurvey work on the inner half of the EEZ whereRaydist and ARGO can be used.

MiningChapter 5

and At-SeaProcessing Technologies

CONTENTSPage

I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 7Dredging Unconsolidated Materials . ......169

Bucketline or Bucket Ladder Dredging.. .169Suction Dredging.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172Grab Dredges . . . . ....................177

New Directions and Trends in DredgingT e c h n o l o g y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 9

Mining Consolidated Materials Offshore ...180Massive Polymetallic Sulfides . . . . . . . . . . .181Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crusts ... ..182

Solution/Borehole Mining . . . . . . . . . . .. ....183Offshore Mining Technologies . ...........185At-Sea Processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185

Processing Unconsolidated Deposits ofChemically Inert Minerals . ..........186

Processing Unconsolidated or Semi-ConsolidatedDeposits of ChemicallyAct ive Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190

Processing Consolidated and ComplexMineral Ores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191

Offshore Mining Scenarios . ..............192Offshore Titaniferous Sands Mining

Scenario . . . . . . . ....................193Offshore Chromate Sands Mining

Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............196Offshore Placer Gold Mining Scenario. ..199Offshore Phosphorite Mining Scenarios:

Tybee Island, Georgia and OnslowBay, North Carolina . . . .

BoxBox5-A. Sand and Gravel Mining

Figure5-1,5-2.

5-3.

5-4.5-5.5-6.5-7.5-8.5-9.

5-10.

5-11.

FiguresNo.

. . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Page. . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Page

Bucket Ladder Mining Dredge .. ....170Capital and Operating Costs forBucket Ladder Mining Dredges. .. ...171Motion Compensation of BucketLadder on Offshore Mining Dredge ..172Components of a Suction Dredge ....172Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge . . . . .174Cutter Head Suction Dredge . .......175Bucket Wheel Suction Dredge . ......176Airlift Suction Dredge Configuration .177Grab Dredges . . . . . . . . .............178Cutter Head Suction Dredge on Self-Elevating Walking Platform . ........179Conceptual Design for Suction DredgeMounted on Semi-SubmersiblePlatform . . . . . . . . . . . .........,.....180

Figure No. Page5-12.

5-13.

5-14.

5-15.

5-16.

5-17.

5-18.

5-19.

5-20.5-21.

Conceptual System for MiningPolymetallic Sulfides . ..............182Schematic of Solution MiningTechnology (Frasch Process) . .......184Technologies for Processing PlacerMineral Ores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .187Operating Principles of Three PlacerMineral Separation Techniques .. ....189Technologies for Processing OffshoreMineral Ores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+ ...191Offshore Titaniferous MineralProvince, Southeast United States ....194Values of TiO2 Content of CommonTitanium Mineral Concentratesand Intermediates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195Offshore Chromate Sands, OregonContinental Shelf... .. .. ... ,.. ... 197Nome, Alaska Placer Gold District ...201Offshore Phosphate District,Southeastern North CarolinaContinental Shelf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .208

TablesTable No. Page

5-1.

5-2.

5-3.5-4.

5-50

5-6.

5-7.

5-8.

5-9.

5-1o.

5-11.

5-12.

Offshore Mineral Mining WorldwideCommercial Operations . . . . . . . ......168Currently Available OffshoreDredging Technology . .............170Ratio of Valuable Mineral to Ore. ...190Offshore Titaniferous Sands MiningScenario: Capital and Operating CostEstimates . . . . . . ...................196Offshore Chromate Sands MiningScenario: Capital and Operating CostEstimates . . . . . . ...................198Offshore Placer Gold MiningScenario: Capital and Operating CostEstimates . . . . . . ...................203Offshore Phosphorite Mining, TybeeIsland, Georgia: Capital andOperating Cost Estimates ....... ...206Offshore Phosphorite Mining, OnslowBay, North Carolina: Capital andOperating Cost Estimates . ..........209Scenario Comparisons: East CoastPlacer . . . . . . . . . . ..................210Scenario Comparisons: West CoastPlacer . . . . . . . . . . . . ................211Scenario Comparisons: Nome, AlaskaGold Placer . . . . . . .................211Scenario Comparisons: Onslow Bayand Tybee Island Phosphorite . . . . . . .212

Chapter 5

Mining and At-Sea Processing Technologies

INTRODUCTION

Many factors influence whether a mineral de-posit can be economically mined. Among the mostimportant are the extent and grade of a deposit;the depth of water in which the deposit is located;and ocean environment characteristics such aswave, wind, current, tide, and storm conditions.Offshore mineral deposits range from unconsoli-dated sedimentary material (e. g., marine placers)to consolidated material (e. g., cobalt-rich ferroman-ganese crusts and massive sulfides). They may oc-cur in a variety of forms, including beds, crusts,nodules, and pavements and at all water depths.Deposits may either lie at the surface of the seabedor be buried below overburden. Some deposits maybe attached solidly to nonvaluable material (as arecobalt-rich crusts), while others (gold) may lie atopbedrock or at the surface of the seabed (manganesenodules). The amount and grade of ore can varysignificantly by location.

All of these variables affect the selection of a min-ing system for a given deposit. Dredging is the mostwidely used technology applicable to offshore min-ing. Dredging consists of the various processes bywhich large floating machines or dredges excavateunconsolidated material from the ocean bottom,raise it to the surface, and discharge it into a hop-per, pipeline, or barge. Waste material excavatedwith the ore may be returned to the water body af-ter removal of valuable minerals. Dredging tech-niques have long been applied to clearing sand andsilt from rivers, harbors, and ship channels. Ap-plication of dredging to mining began over a cen-tury ago in rivers draining the southern NewZealand gold fields. Offshore, no minerals of anytype have been commercially dredged in watersdeeper than 300 feet, and very little dredge min-ing has occurred in water deeper than 150 feet. Off-shore dredging technology is currently used to re-cover tin, diamonds, sea shells, and sand and gravelat several locations around the world (table 5- 1).

Some of the problems of marine mining are com-mon to all offshore deposits. Whether one consid-ers mining placers or cobalt-rich ferromanganesecrusts, for instance, technology must be able to copewith the effects of the ocean environment—storms,waves, currents, tides, and winds. Other problemsare specific to a deposit or location (e. g., the pres-ence of ice) and hence require technology speciallydesigned or adapted for that location.

Just as many variables influence offshore mineralprocessing. The processing scheme must be de-signed to accommodate the composition and gradeof ore mined, the mineral product(s) to be recov-ered, and the feed size of the material. Mineralprocessing technology has a long history onshore.Applications offshore differ in that technology mustbe able to cope with the effects of vessel motion andthe use of seawater for processing. Technologiescurrently applied to processing minerals at sea areall mechanical operations and include dewatering,sizing, and gravity separation. Processing at sea iscurrently limited to the separation of the bulk ofthe waste material from the useful minerals. Thismay be all the processing required for such prod-ucts as sand and gravel, diamonds, and gold; how-ever, many other products, including, for example,most heavy minerals, require further shore-basedprocessing. Chemical treatment, smelting, andrefining of metals have heretofore taken place onshore, and, given the difficulty and expense of proc-essing beyond the bulk concentrate stage at sea, arelikely to continue to be done on land in most cases.

The degree to which processing at sea is under-taken depends on economics as well as on the ca-pabilities of technology. As with mining technol-ogy, some processing technology is relatively welldeveloped (e. g., technology for extracting preciousmetals or heavy minerals from a placer) while othertechnology is unlikely to be refined for commer-cial use in the absence of economic incentives.

167

Table 5-1.—Offshore Mineral Mining Worldwide Commercial Operations

Water Number ofdepth mining

Location Mineral (feet) Mining method Processing units Remarks

Active:Phuket, Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Billiton, Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . .Palau Tujuh, Indonesia . . . . . . . . .North Sea, UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Southwestern Africa (Namibia) . .Southwestern Africa . . . . . . . . . . .Norton Sound, Nome, Alaska . . .

Reykjavik, Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nationwide, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bahamas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inactive or TerminatedPhilippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T i nT i nT i nSand & gravelD iamondsD i a m o n d sG o l d

Sea shellsSand & gravelCalcium carbonate

G o l dG o l dIron sandsT i nT i n

SOURCE ~ffice of Technology Assessment, 1987

10035-18015065

50-4900-50

35-65

130

0-35

Bucket dredgingBucket dredgingBucket dredgingHopper dredgingWater jet suction airliftDiver-held suctionBucket dredging

Hopper dredgeAll techsSuction dredge

Bucke tB u c k e tG r a bS u c t i o n d r e d g eS u c t i o n d r e d g e

Gravity/jigs 2Gravity/jigs 18Gravity/jigs 1Dewatering only 12Gravity/jigs 5 Pilot plant miningGravity/jigs 10 Very small scaleGravity/jigs 1 Pilot mining in 1986 with Bima

Motion Compensation ofBucket Ladder

Dewatering onlyDewatering only Small units (1,000m3)Dewatering 1

Ch. 5—Mining and At-Sea Processing Technologies ● 169


Dredge technology for offshore mining must be designed for rough water conditions.

DREDGING UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIALS

The dredge is the standard technology for ex-cavating unconsolidated materials from the seafloor.Compacted material or even hard bedrock also canbe removed by dredging, provided it has been bro-ken in advance by explosives or by mechanical cut-ting methods. Dredges are mounted on floatingplatforms that support the excavating equipment.Mining dredges may also have equipment on boardto handle and/or process ore.

Three principal dredging techniques are: buck-etline, suction, and grab (table 5-2). For bucket-line and suction dredging, the material is continu-ously removed from the seabed and lifted to the seasurface. Grab dredges also lift material to the sur-face, but in discrete, discontinuous quantities.

Most existing mining dredges are designed tooperate in relatively protected waters. Dredge min-ing offshore in open water occurs in only a few

countries (Southwest Africa, United Kingdom, In-donesia, Thailand). The Bima, a mining dredgebuilt for tin mining offshore Indonesia, is beingadapted at this time for gold mining offshore Nome,Alaska. Little special equipment capable of min-ing the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) hasyet been built, although some feasibility studies andtests have been conducted.

Bucketline or Bucket Ladder Dredging

The bucketline or bucket ladder dredge consistsof a series of heavy steel buckets connected in aclosed loop around a massive steel ladder (in themanner of the chain on a chain saw) (figure 5-l).The ladder is suspended from a floating platform.For mining, the ladder is lowered until the bucketsscrape against the dredging face, where each bucketis filled with ore as it moves forward. The buckets


Table 5-2.-Currently Available Offshore Dredging Technology

Present maxType Description dredging depth Capacity

Bucketline and “Continuous” line of buckets loopedbucket ladder around digging ladder mechanically

digs out the seabed and carriesexcavated material to floatingplatform.

Suction Pump creates vacuum that drawsmixture of water and seabed materialup the suction line.

Cutter head Mechanical cutters or high pressureTrailing hopper water jets disaggregated the seabed

material; suction continuously lifts tofloating platform.

Airlifts Suction is created by injecting air inthe suction line.

Grab:Backhoe/dipper Mechanical digging action and lifting to

surface by a stiff arm.

Clamshell/ Mechanical digging action and lifting todragline surface on flexible cables.

164 feet

300 feet

50-300 feet

10,000 feet

100 feet

3,000 feet

Largest buckets currently made areabout 1.3 yd3 and lifting rates 25buckets per minute (1,950 yd3/hourwith full buckets).

Restricted by the suction distanceunless the pump is submerged,

Many possible arrangements all basedon using a dredge pump; the largestdredge pumps currently made have48” diameter intakes and flow rates of130 to 260 yd3/min of mixture (10 to20% solids).

Airlifts are not efficient in shallowwater. There may be limitations insuction line diameter when liftinglarge fragments.

Restricted by the duration of the cycleand by the size of the bucket;currently largest buckets made are27 yd3.

The largest dragline buckets made areabout 200 to 260 yd3/hr; powerrequirements and cycle time increasewith depth.

SOURCE: Office of Assessment, 1987.

Figure 5-1 .—Bucket Ladder Mining Dredge

The bucket ladder dredge is a proven and widely used dredge for offshore mining; however, its use to date has been limitedto calm, shallow water.

SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey.


traveling up the ladder lift the material to the plat-form and discharge the ore into the processingplant.

The bucket ladder dredge is the most proven andwidely used technology for mining offshore tin plac-ers in open water in Southeast Asia. Bucket ladderdredges are widely used to mine onshore gold, plati-num, diamonds, tin, and rutile placers in Malaysia,Thailand, Brazil, Colombia, Sierra Leone, Ghana,New Zealand, and Alaska. Bucket ladder dredgetechnology is still the best method to ‘‘clean’ bed-rock, which is particularly important for the recov-ery from placer deposits of heavy, high-unit-valueminerals like gold and platinum. These dredgeshave buckets ranging in size from 1 to 30 cubic feet.The deepest digging bucket line dredges are de-signed to dig up to 164 feet below the surface.

Prices of bucket ladder dredges (including proc-essing plants) for mining onshore vary with dredgecapacity (bucket size) and with dredging depth. Asmall bucket dredge (with 3-cubic-foot buckets) maysell for approximately $1.5 million (free on boardplant). Such a dredge can mine 60,000 to 80,000cubic yards of ore per month at depths of 30 to 40feet below the hull. The cost of larger onshore min-ing bucket dredges (with buckets as large as 30 cu-bic feet) and capacities up to 1 million cubic yardsper month may reach $10 million to $20 million,depending on digging depth and other variables.

The per-cubic-yard capital and operating costsof larger dredges are lower than those of smallerdredges (figure 5-2). Offshore bucket ladder dredgescost more than onshore dredges because they mustbe more self-contained. They must be built to carrya powerplant, fuel, supplies, and mined ore. Thehull also must be larger and heavier to withstandwaves and to meet marine insurance specifications.In 1979, the capital cost of the 30-cubic-foot Bimawas about $33 million. Approximately 10 bucketdredges configured for offshore use are currentlymining tin in Indonesia in water depths of 100 to165 feet at distances of 20 to 30 miles offshore.

Despite their versatility, offshore uses of bucketladder dredges are limited. Much of the EEZaround the United States is subject to waves andocean swells that could make bucket ladder dredg-ing difficult. To ensure that the lower end of theladder maintains constant thrust against the cut-

Figure 5.2.—Capital and Operating Costsfor Bucket Ladder Mining Dredges

Yearly volume excavated and treated million cubic yards

Dredges for use offshore would cost more to build andoperate than the estimates illustrated here, since they wouldhave to be self-contained and contain a power plant, fuel,supplies, and mined ore. They would also have to be capableof wi ths tanding waves and h igh winds.

SOURCE: Adapted from M J. Richardson and E.E. Horton, “Technologies forDredge Mining Minerals of the Exclusive Economic Zone,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1986

ting face, motion compensation systems must beinstalled. These systems are large hydraulic and aircylinders that act like springs to allow the end ofthe ladder to remain in the same place while thehull pitches and heaves in swells (figure 5-3). Otherlimitations of current dredges include the high wearrate of the excavating components (e. g., buckets,pins, rollers, and tumblers) and the lack of mobil-ity. Offshore bucket dredges are not self-propelledand must be towed when changing locations. Forlong tows across rough water, the ladder makes thevessel unseaworthy and makes towing impractical.The bucket dredge Bima was actually carried ona submersible lift barge from Indonesia to Alaska.In designing offshore dredges, especially thoseworking in rough water, careful attention must begiven to seaworthiness of the hull.

Most bucket ladder dredges are now built out-side the United States, although the capability andknow-how still exist in this country. Except for themotion compensation systems installed on offshoredredges, bucket ladder dredge technology has re-mained essentially static, and there have been onlyminor gains in dredging depth in the last 50 years.


Figure 5-3.–Motion Compensation of Bucket Ladder on Offshore Mining Dredge

Motion compensation systems might be necessary offshore to ensure that the lower end of the dredge ladder maintains constantthrust against the cutting face while the dredge hull pitches and heaves in swells.

SOURCE: Dredge Technology Corp.

With the availability of new materials and higherstrength steels, it is now possible to design bucketladder dredges capable of digging twice as deep (330feet) as present dredges, but the capital and oper-ating costs would be greatly increased.

Suction Dredging

Suction dredging systems have three principalcomponents: a suction device, a suction line, anda movable platform or vessel (figure 5-4). The suc-tion device can be either a mechanical pump oran airlift. Pumps are most common on suctiondredges; airlifts have more specialized applications.Pumps create a drop in pressure in the suction line.This pressure drop draws or sucks in a mixture ofseawater and material from the vicinity of the suc-tion head and up the suction line into the pump.After the slurry passes through the pump, it ispushed by the pump along the discharge pipe un-til it reaches the delivery point.

Pump technology is considered relatively ad-vanced. Dredge pumps are a specialized applica-tion. The main features required of dredge pumpsare large capacity, resistance to abrasion, and effi-ciency. To accommodate the large volumes of ma-terial dredged, the largest dredging pumps have in-takes of up to 48 inches in diameter and impellersup to 12 feet in diameter. These parts require largesteel castings that are both costly and complicatedto make. The flow of solids (e. g., silicate sand orgravel) and water at speeds of 10 to 20 feet per sec-ond through the pump and suction line causes abra-sion and wear.

Figure 5-4.–Components of a Suction Dredge

The main types of suction dredges currently applicable tooffshore mining are hopper, cutter head, and bucket wheeldredges.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S7.

Pumps create suction by reducing the pressurein suction lines below atmospheric pressure. Only80 percent of vacuum can be achieved using presentmechanical pumping technology. This constraintmeans that dredge pumps cannot lift pure seawaterin the suction line more than about 25 feet abovethe ocean level. This distance would be less for amixture of seawater and solids and would vary withthe amount of entrained solids. Greater efficiencycan be achieved by placing the pump below thewater line of the vessel, usually as near as possible


to the seabed. This placement is more costly, sincethe pump is either a long distance from the powersource or the pump motors must be submerged.Such components are very heavy for large pumpcapacities. An alternative applicable for deep dredg-ing is to use several pumps in series and boost theflow in the suction line by means of water jets. Thistechnique has been tested and proven but is notin widespread use because it is inefficient.

The configuration of the suction head plays animportant role by allowing the passage of the solidsand water mixture up the suction line. In harder,more compact material, the action of the suctionhead may be augmented by rotary mechanical cut-ters, by bucket wheels, and/or by water jets, de-pending on the specific applications. When the ma-terial to be dredged is unhomogeneous, such assand and gravel, the entrance of the suction lineis restricted to prevent foreign objects (e. g, largeboulders) from entering the suction line. The maintechnological constraints in suction and dischargesystems are wear and reliability due to corrosion,abrasion, and metal fatigue.

The platform or vessel that supports suctiondredging components must be able to lift and movethe suction head from one location to another. Sincemost dredgeable underwater mineral deposits aremore broad than thick, the dredge must have thecapability to sweep large areas of the seabed. Thisis achieved by moving the platform, generally afloating vessel; although experimental, bottom-supported suction dredges have been built andtested.

The main types of suction dredges currentlyapplicable to offshore mining in the EEZ are hop-per, cutter head, and bucket wheel dredges.

Hopper Dredges

Hopper dredges usually are self-propelled, sea-going suction dredges equipped with a special holdor hopper in which dredged material is stored (fig-ure 5-5). Dredging is done using one or two dredgepumps connected to trailing drag arms and suctionheads. As the dredge moves forward, material issucked from the seabed through the drag arms andemptied into the hopper. Alternatively, the dredgemay be anchored and used to excavate a pit in thedeposit.

Hopper dredges are used mainly to clear andmaintain navigational channels and harbor en-trances and to replenish sand-depleted beaches. Inthe United Kingdom and Japan, they are also usedto mine sand and gravel offshore. Hopper dredgesare configured to handle unconsolidated, free-flowing sedimentary material. The suction headsare usually passive, although some are equippedwith high-pressure water jets to loosen seabed ma-terial. The trailing drag arms are usually equippedwith motion compensation devices and gimbaljoints. These devices allow the drag arms to bedecoupled from vessel motion and enable the drag-heads to remain in constant contact with theseafloor while dredging.

The dredged material is dewatered for transportafter entering the hopper. Hopper dredges may dis-charge material through bottom doors, conveyorbelts, or discharge pumps. Some models are emp-tied by swinging apart the two halves of an axiallyhinged hull.

Capacities of sea-going suction hopper dredgescurrently range from 650 to 33,000 cubic yards.Although the theoretically maximum-sized hopperdredge has not been built, the maximum capacityof present dredges is a compromise between thehigher capital investment required for greater hop-per capacity and the higher operating costs thatwould result from more trips with smaller hoppers.Typical operating depths for hopper dredges are

Photo credit: J. Williams, U.S. Geological Survey

Trailing suction hopper dredge Sugar Island with dragarms stowed and hopper space visible.


Figure 5-5.—Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge

P

Hopper dredges have been used mainly to clear and maintain navigational channels and harbor entrances and to replenishsand-depleted beaches. A hopper dredge is currently being used to mine sand and gravel in the Ambrose Channel entranceto New York Harbor.


between 35 and 100 feet, and 260 feet is consid-ered the maximum achievable depth with currentlyavailable technology. For current specifications andcapacities, the capital costs of hopper dredges rangefrom $5 million to $50 million.

Except for sand and gravel mining in Japan andthe North Sea, hopper dredges have not been usedextensively to recover minerals. However, hopperdredges adapted for preliminary concentration(beneficiation) of heavy minerals at sea, with over-board rejection of waste solids and water, are likelycandidates for mining any sizable, thin, and looselyconsolidated deposits of economic heavy mineralsthat might be found in water less than 165 feet deep.

A stationary suction dredge, similar in princi-ple to the anchored suction hopper dredge, has beendesigned and extensively tested for mining themetalliferous muds of the Red Sea. 1 Although the

‘‘Technology for the Exploration and Exploi-tation of Marine Mineral Deposits, Non-Living Marine Resources(New York, NY: United Nations, Oceans, Economics, and Technol-ogy Branch), in press.

dredge has not been used commercially, it success-fully retrieved muds in 7,200 feet of water.

Cutter Head Suction Dredges

Mechanically driven cutting devices may bemounted near the intake of some suction dredgesto break up compacted material such as clay, clayeysands, or gravel. The two main types are cutterheads and bucket wheels.

Cutter head dredges are equipped with a specialcutter (figure 5-6) mounted at the end of the suc-tion pipe. The cutter rotates slowly into the bot-tom material as the dredging platform sweeps side-ways, pulling against ‘‘swing lines’ anchored oneither side. Cutter head dredges usually advanceby lifting and swinging about their spuds when inshallow water.

Cutter head dredges are in widespread use oninland waterways for civil engineering and miningprojects. Onshore, these dredges have been usedto mine heavy minerals, (e. g., ilmenite, rutile, andzircon) from ancient beaches and sand dunes in the


Figure 5.6.—Cutter Head Suction Dredge

Dredges such as this have been used at inland mine sites to mine heavy minerals such as ilmenite, rutile, and zircon.

SOURCE: Dredge Technology Corp

United States (Florida), Australia (Queensland),and South Africa (Richards Bay). Ore disaggre-gate by the cutter is pumped through a flexiblepipeline to a wet concentrating plant floating sev-eral hundred feet behind the dredge. This config-uration, while common on protected dredge pondsinland, may not be suitable for mining in the openwater of the marine environment because of wave,current, and wind conditions.

Large self-propelled cutter head suction dredgeshave been built that are capable of steaming inrough water with the cutter suction ladder raised.While not able to operate in heavy seas, this typeof dredge can disengage from the bottom and ‘‘rideout’ storms. Adaptation of a sea-going cutter headdredge to mining may require a motion compen-sated ladder and installation of onboard process-ing facilities and would require addition of a hop-per or the use of auxiliary barges.

The capital costs of cutter head suction dredgesvary widely with size and configuration. For sea-going, self-powered dredges the capital costs wouldbe similar to those of hopper dredges, i.e., up to$50 million. The capacities of cutter head dredgesvary with the size of the dredge pumps, which rangein diameter between 6 and 48 inches. This rangeof diameters corresponds to mining volumes ofsolids between 100 and 4,000 cubic yards per hour.

Like suction hopper dredges, the operatingdepths of available cutter head dredge designs arelimited by dredge pump technology to between 35and 260 feet, although greater mining depths couldbe achieved with incremental technical improve-ments. The cutter head suction dredge is not con-sidered suitable for cleaning bedrock to recover goldor other very dense minerals in placer deposits, dueto inefficiency in recovering the heavier minerals.


Figure 5-7.—Bucket Wheel Suction Dredge

Hoist I

dredges may have some potential for mining offshore placer deposits.


Bucket Wheel Suction Dredges

The bucket wheel dredge (figure 5-7) is a vari-ant of a cutter head dredge, differing mainly in thatthe cutter is replaced by a rotating wheel equippedwith buckets that cut into the dredging face in amanner similar to a bucket ladder dredge. Thebuckets are bottomless and discharge directly intothe suction line.

Bucket wheel mining dredges are a relatively newdevelopment and have been used primarily in calminland waters. Some applications include tin min-ing in Brazil, sand and gravel mining in the UnitedStates, and heavy mineral mining in South Africa.The bucket wheel dredge has not been used in theEEZ, but it may have potential for mining offshoreheavy minerals in specific applications. Motioncompensation, offshore hull design, and mobilitywould need to be considered. These dredges areless effective when cutting clay-rich materials, whichmay clog the buckets, and when dredging boulders,which could block the opening into the suction lines.However, bucket wheel dredges are more suitable

than cutter head suction dredges for mining heavyminerals, since the bucket wheel avoids the prob-lem of loss of heavy minerals on the bottom.

Air Lift Suction Dredges

In airlift suction dredging, air under pressure isinjected in the suction line of the dredge, substi-tuting for the mechanical action of a dredge pump(figure 5-8) and creating suction at the intake whichallows the upward transport of solids. Airlifts havebeen used for many years in salvage operations and,during the past 25 years, for mining diamond-bear-ing gravels off the southwestern coast of Africa.

The technology of airlift dredges has not reachedthe level of development and widespread use of theother forms of suction dredging, but the configu-rations are similar. Much research has been doneon the physics of the flow of water, air, and solidsmixtures in airlift suction dredging, because thismethod has been considered one of the most prom-ising for dredging phosphorite or manganese nod-ules from great ocean depths. In general, applica-


Figure 5-8.—Airlift Suction Dredge Configuration

Airlift dredges may be applicable for some seabed deposits300 feet or more below the ocean surface. Airlift dredginghas been used on a pilot scale to lift manganese nodules fromabout 15,000 feet.


tions of airlifts for mining offshore minerals maybe considered for depths between 300 and 16,000feet. Suction and air delivery lines can be handledwith techniques readily adapted from the petroleumindustry; the problem of platform motion in re-sponse to long period waves can be overcome byadapting motion compensation systems used in thepetroleum industry; and seabed material can be dis-aggregated at the suction intake by high-pressurewater jets or by hydraulically driven mechanicalcutters.

Grab Dredges

Grab dredging is the mechanical action of cut-ting or scooping material from the seabed in finitequantities and lifting the filled ‘ ‘grab’ containerto the ocean surface. Grab dredging takes place ina cycle: lower, fill, lift, discharge, and again lower

the grab bucket. Clamshell, dragline, dipper, andbackhoe dredges are examples of this technology(figure 5-9). Clamshells and draglines are widelyused for dredging boulders or massive rock frag-ments broken by explosives and for removing over-burden from coal and other stratified mineral de-posits. The clamshell and dragline buckets arelowered and lifted with flexible steel cables. Vari-ants of clamshell dredging have been used in Thai-land to mine tin in Phuket Harbor and in Japanto mine iron sands in Ariake Bay. In the late 1960s,Global Marine, Inc., used a clamshell dredge forpilot mining of gold-bearing material from depthsof 1,000 feet near Juneau, Alaska. Variants ofdragline dredges have been used since the late 19thcentury to recover material from the deep seafloor.

With appropriate winch configurations for han-dling large amounts of cable and large buckets, grabdredging is similar to the traditional technologiesused to hoist material from deep undergroundmines (e. g., in South Africa, where it is economi-cally feasible to hoist gold ores from 12,000 feet be-low the ground surface). Most aspects of clamshelldredging technology, including motion compensa-tion for working on a moving platform at sea, havebeen developed and proven by either the miningor petroleum industry and are readily available foradaptation to offshore mining.

Dipper and backhoe dredges are designed for useon land (figure 5-9). They may be placed on float-ing pontoons for offshore dredging but are limitedto shallow-water applications. Backhoes especiallycan be easily adapted to mining in protected shal-low water. Commercial off-the-shelf backhoes witha maximum reach of about 30 feet and buckets withcapacities of up to 3 cubic yards are readily avail-able for gold or tin placer mining in protected envi-ronments. Backhoes mounted on walking platformsare conceivable for excavation in shallow surf zones.Backhoe mining is limited by depth of reach, smallcapacity, and the inability of the operator to seethe cutting action of the bucket below water. Dip-per dredges are widely used to mine stratifiedmineral deposits (e. g., coal and bauxite) on land,but their unique action (figure 5-9) restricts offshoreapplications to shallow water. As dredged materialusing grab, dipper, and backhoe dredges is raisedthrough the water column, the material is washed,which may not be desirable in mining.


Figure 5-9.—Grab Dredges

Ch. 5—Mining and At-Sea Processing Technologies . 179

NEW DIRECTIONS AND TRENDS IN DREDGING TECHNOLOGY

Dredge technology for offshore mining falls intotwo distinct categories: technology for mining near-shore in shallow, protected water; and technologyfor further offshore in deeper water subject towinds, currents, and ocean swell. Dredging systemsfor a shallow environment can be readily adaptedfrom the various types of dredges currently usedonshore. Dredges for mining in a deep-water envi-ronment must be designed with special character-istics. They must be self-powered, seaworthy plat-forms equipped with motion compensation systems,onboard processing plants, and mineral storage ca-pabilities.

Design and construction of offshore dredge min-ing systems for almost any kind of unconsolidatedmineral deposit or environment on the continen-tal shelf are possible without major new technologi-cal developments. However, for some environ-ments, there may be operating limitations due toseasonal wave and storm conditions. No break-throughs comparable to the change from the pis-ton to the jet engine in the aircraft industry, forinstance, are needed. If deposits of sufficient sizeand richness are found, incremental improvementsin dredging technology can be expected. Costs todesign, build, and operate dredging equipment foroffshore mining are the most significant constraints.

Several new design concepts have been developedto help solve some of the problems of dredging atsea. The motion of platforms floating on the oceangenerally make dredging difficult, but there arethree ways to alleviate this movement other thanthose described previously. In one approach forshallow water, one firm has designed and built aneight-leg ‘‘walking and dredging self-elevating plat-form" (WADSEP) to support a cutter head suc-tion dredging system (figure 5-10). By raising andtranslating one set of legs at a time the platformcreeps slowly across the seafloor. Since the platformis firmly grounded, the problem of operating inrough, open water is reduced. The dredge ladderand cutter head sweep sideways by pulling againstanchors. This self-elevating platform could equallywell support a bucket ladder dredging operation.The practical limit for dredging using a WADSEPis probably about 300 feet. Although the conceptand technology are sound, the WADSEP is not cur-rently cost-effective to use.

Figure 5-10.—Cutter Head Suction Dredgeon Self-Elevating Walking Platform

Although the technology is proven, mining operations witha self-elevating walking ‘platform are currently very expensive.


A second technological approach to the problemof dredge motion in offshore environments is to usea semi-submersible platform, such as those in wide-spread use in the petroleum industry. This wouldenable a dredge to continue mining or to stay on-station rather than having to be demobilized dur-ing rough weather. A design for a suction dredgethat incorporates a seaworthy semi-submersible hullis shown in figure 5-11. A disadvantage of the semi-submersible platform would be its sensitivity tolarge changes in deadweight if dredged material isstored on board.

A third approach to eliminating platform motionin shallow water is to develop a submerged dredge.This project has proved to be complex and diffi-cult in systems tested to date. Although a proto-type of a submerged cutter head suction dredge was


Figure 5-il.–Conceptual Design for Suction DredgeMounted on Semi-Submersible Platform

Semi-submersible platforms have been developed foroffshore oil drilling. The semi-submersible platform offers astable platform from which to operate, but is very expensive.

successfully built and operated offshore for severalmonths, it was not an economic success and its de-velopment was discontinued.

Greater dredging depths can be attained by sub-merging pumping systems or by employing airliftor water jet lift systems. While submerged pumptechnology can be readily adapted from militarysubmarine technology or from deep-water petro-leum technology, the development costs are high.

No breakthroughs are foreseen that could vastlyincrease the capacities of offshore dredging systemsand bring substantial cost reductions. However, ex-isting technology is largely based on steel construc-tion, and the use of new, lighter materials withhigher strength-to-weight ratios has not been widelyinvestigated.


MINING CONSOLIDATED MATERIALS OFFSHORE

Two principal types of consolidated deposits thatare known to occur in the U.S. EEZ are massivepolymetallic sulfides and cobalt-rich ferroman-ganese crusts. Alternatives for mining manganesenodules, where present in the EEZ, have much incommon with dredging techniques used in shallowwater, although the deep water in which nodulesare found presents special problems. However,

techniques for mining polymetallic sulfides and co-balt crusts are likely to be very different than thedredging techniques used to mine placers and otherunconsolidated deposits. Unlike unconsolidated de-posits, these deposits must be broken up (using ei-ther some type of mechanical device or blasting)and possibly must be crushed prior to transport tothe surface. Moreover, all known cobalt crust and


offshore polymetallic sulfide deposits occur in deepwater, beyond the range of technologies used forconventional placer mining.

Much of the technology needed to mine massivepolymetallic sulfide and cobalt crust deposits is yetto be developed. EEZ hard-rock deposits and mas-sive polymetallic sulfide deposits are, therefore,probably of more scientific than commercial interestat this time. Research on the genesis, distribution,extent, composition, and other geological aspectsof these deposits has been underway for only a fewyears, and more knowledge will likely be requiredbefore the private sector is likely to consider spend-ing large sums of money to develop needed min-ing technology. A more immediate need is to re-fine the technology for sampling these hard-rockdeposits (see ch. 4). Before mining equipment canbe designed, more technical and engineering dataon the deposits will be required.2

In the deep ocean, technology must be designedto cope with elevated hydrostatic pressure, the cor-rosive saltwater environment, the barrier imposedby the seawater column, and rugged terrain. Evenonshore, mining equipment requires constant re-pair and maintenance. Given deep ocean condi-tions, it will be particularly important that miningequipment be as simple as possible, reliable, andsturdy. 3

Massive Polymetallic Sulfides

Although technology for mining massive sulfideshas not been developed, the steps likely to be re-quired are straightforward. To start, any overbur-den covering the massive sulfides would have to beremoved, although it is likely that initial miningtargets would be selected without overburden.Then, the resource would then have to be frag-mented, collected, possibly reduced in size, trans-ported to a surface vessel, optionally beneficiatedon the vessel, and finally transported to shore.

*R, Kaufman, ‘ ‘Conceptual Approaches for Mining Marine Poly -metallic Sulfide Deposits, Marine T~chnology Socict)’JournaI, \ol.1 9 , No. 4, 19&35, p, 5 6 .

ID. K, Denton, Jr, , ‘ ‘Review of Existing, De\,eloping, and RequiredTechnology for Exploration, Delineation, and Mining of Seabed Mas-sive Sulfide Deposits, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minerals AvailabilityProgram, Technical Assistance Series, October 1985, p. 13,

A number of conceptual approaches have beensuggested to fragment and/or extract massive sul-fides. These include use of cutter head dredges;drilling and blasting; high-pressure water jets;dozers, rippers, or scrapers; high-intensity shockwaves; and in situ leaching.4 All proposed extrac-tion methods have some drawbacks, and none havebeen tested in the ocean environment. Crushingor grinding, where required, is not technically dif-ficult on land but has not yet been done in com-mercial operations on the seafloor. Transport ofcrushed ore to the surface would most likely beaccomplished by hydraulic pumping (using eitherairlift or submerged centrifugal pumps). This tech-nology has been studied for mining seabed manga-nese nodule deposits, so it is perhaps the mostadvanced submerged part of many proposed hard-rock mining systems.

No major technical innovations are expected tobe needed for surface ship operations, although thecost of equipment such as dynamically positionedsemi-submersible platforms will be expensive. On-board storage and transport of massive sulfide orewould have similar requirements as storage andtransport of most other ores. Flotation technologyfor beneficiating massive sulfides has not yet beenadapted for use at sea; however, the U.S. Bureauof Mines has initiated research on the subject.

One conceptual approach5 for deposits on or justbelow the seafloor envisions the use of a bottom-mounted hydraulic dredge (figure 5-12). The dredgewould be equipped with a suction cutter-ripper headcapable of moving back and forth and also telescop-ing as it cuts into the sulfide deposit and simultane-ously fractures and picks up the material by suc-tion. The dredged material would be first pumpedfrom the seabed to a crusher and screen system,then into a storage and injection hopper on the sub-merged dredge, and finally from the injection hop-per to the surface. An airlift pump and segmentedsteel riser would give vertical lift. The surface plat-form would be a large, dynamically positioned,semi-submersible platform. After dewatering, thepumped material would be discharged into storageholds on the platform. In concept, the ore would

be beneficiated on the platform, loaded on a barge,

‘Ibid,, pp. 16-175 Kaufman, ‘ ‘Conceptual Approaches for Mining, ” pp. 55-56.


Figure 5-12.—Conceptual System for MiningPolymetallic Sulfides

A prototype system for mining massive sulfides will unlikelybe developed until the economics improve and more is knownabout the deposits (not to scale).

SOURCE: R. Kaufman, “Conceptual Approaches for Mining Marine PolymetallicSulfide Deposits,” Marine Technology Society Journal, VOI 19, No. 4,1985, p. 56.

and finally transported to shore using a tug-bargesystem. While such approaches seem reasonablegiven the current state of knowledge, a prototypemining system may be very different. It will notbe possible to develop such a system until more isknown about the nature of massive sulfides and un-til there is a perceived economic incentive to minethem.

Cobalt-Rich Ferromanganese Crusts

Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts on Pacific sea-mounts have been known for at least 20 years.However, knowledge that the crusts could some daybe an economically exploitable resource is recent,and technology for mining the crusts is no moreadvanced than technology for mining massivesulfides.

Despite lack of technology and detailed informa-tion about the resource, a consortium (consistingof Brown & Root of the United States, PreussagAG of West Germany, and Nippon Kokan of Ja-pan) has expressed interest in mining cobalt-richcrusts in the U.S. EEZ surrounding the State ofHawaii and Johnston Island. Most observers ex-pect that crusts, if mined at all, are likely to bemined before sulfides. With this in mind, Hawaiiand the U.S. Department of the Interior have re-cently prepared an Environmental Impact State-ment (EIS) in which the resource potential and po-tential environmental impacts of crust mining inthe Hawaiian and Johnston Island EEZs areassessed.

In addition, a relatively detailed mining devel-opment scenario has been prepared as part of theEIS.6 The scenario describes and evaluates the vari-ous subsystems required to mine crusts. A num-ber of approaches are possible for each subsystem,but the basic tasks are the same. Subsystems wouldbe required to fragment, collect, and crush crustand probably to partially separate crust from sub-strate before conveying ore to the surface. The sur-face support vessel and subsystem for pumping ore

S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,and State of Hawaii, Department of Planning and Economic Devel-opment, Proposed Marine Mineral Lease Sale in the HawaiianArchipelago andJohnston Island Exclusive Economic Zones (DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement), app. A: “Mining DevelopmentScenario Summary, ” January 1987.

Ch. 5—Mining and At-Sea Processing Technologies 183

to the surface probably would be similar to thosealready designed for mining manganese nodules.

Crusts form thin coatings on the surface of vari-ous types of nonvaluable substrates. A principalproblem in designing a crust mining system willbe to separate crust from substrate in order to min-imize dilution of the ore. The thickness and conti-nuity of the crust (which are often highly variable),the nature of its bonding to substrate, and the effi-ciency of the cutting device used will affect howmuch substrate is collected. The more substrate col-lected, the lower the ore grade and the greater thecosts of transportation, processing, and waste dis-posal. The principal alternatives are to separatecrust from unwanted substrate on the seabed (andthus avoid lifting substrate to the surface) or to sep-arate crust and substrate on the mining vessel.Complete separation on the seabed of ore from

waste material would be preferable (if at all feasi-ble), but costs to do so may be prohibitively high.It is more likely that only a small amount of thenecessary separation will take place on the seabedand that most of the separation will take place onthe mining vessel or onshore.

The mining system assumed in the EIS miningscenario employs a controllable, bottom-crawlingtracked vehicle attached to a mining ship by a hy-draulic lift system and electrical umbilical cord.However, before mining concepts can be signifi-cantly refined, more information will be requiredabout the physical characteristics of the crusts.More data on the microtopography of crusts andsubstrate are an especially important requirementfor the design of the key element of the mining sys-tem, a crust fragmenting device.

SOLUTION/BOREHOLE MINING

Solution or borehole mining has much in com-mon with drilling for oil and gas; in fact, much ofthe technology for this mining method is borrowedfrom the oil and gas industry. Both terms refer tothe mining of rock material from underground de-posits by pumping water or a leaching solutiondown wells into contact with the deposit and remov-ing the slurry or brine thus created. Because themining process is accomplished through a drill hole,this method is applicable for recovering some typesof ore without first removing overburden.

The Frasch process, used since 1960 to mine sul-fur from salt dome deposits in the Gulf of Mexico,is the only current application of solution miningoffshore (figure 5- 13). From an offshore drillingplatform, superheated water and compressed air arepumped into the sulfur deposit. The hot water meltsthe sulfur, and liquid sulfur, water, and air areforced to the surface for collection. 7

Borehole mining has been considered for recov-ery of both onshore and offshore phosphates. TheU.S. Bureau of Mines has tested a prototype bore-hole mining tool onshore. For mining, the tool is

71) ~; hlorsc, ‘‘Sulfur, ‘‘ .Iljncral Fat (S ancl I’rnblcrns- 198.5 Edi-tion, Bullet in 67.5 (W’ashingttln, DC L-. S Bureau of’ Mines, 1 986),p 78.5.

lowered into a predrilled, steel-cased borehole tothe ore. A rotating water jet on the tool disintegratesthe phosphate matrix while a jet pump at the lowerend of the tool pumps the resulting slurry to thesurface. The slurry is then transported to a benefici-ation plant by pipeline. The resulting cavity is back-filled with sand to prevent subsidence.

Results of economic feasibility studies of usingthe borehole mining technique onshore show that,where the thickness of the overburden is greaterthan 150 feet, borehole mining may be more eco-nomical than conventional surface mining systems.8

An elaborate platform would be required for min-ing offshore deposits, so capital costs are expectedto be higher than for onshore deposits. Boreholemining of phosphate appears to be less destructiveto the environment than conventional phosphatemining techniques and, if used offshore, wouldprobably not require backfilling of cavities.

Solution mining also has been mentioned as apossible technique for mining offshore massive sul-fides. Significant drawbacks include the applicationof chemical reagents capable of leaching these sul-

8J, A. Hrablk and D <J Godcsky, ‘‘ E( on(lmlc E\alual ion c)t B(]rt’-hole and Con\’ entional hlining S~stcrns in Phosphate Ilcposits, BL~-rcau of’ Afines Information Cirrular 892?, 1983.


Figure 5-13.—Schematic of Solution MiningTechnology (Frasch Process)

r

air

ing

fides, possible contamination of seawater by thechemical leach solutions required, and the prob-able necessity of fracturing impermeable depositsto allow the leach solution to percolate through thedeposit. Solution/borehole technology is untestedon marine hard-rock deposits.9

Solution mining of sulfur is currently done in the Gulf ofMexico. Borehole mining, which has been suggested formining phosphorite, is similar, using high pressure water todisintegrate ore below overburden. The resulting slurry is thenpumped to the surface.

SOURCES: Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 25 (Danbury j CT: Grolier, Inc., 1986), 868; J.W. Shelton, “’Sulfur,” Mineral Facts and Problems, 1980 ed. ‘Denton, “Review of Existing, Developing, and Required Tech-(Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Mines), 864. n o l o g y .


OFFSHORE MINING

Unless concentrations of mineral deposits off-shore are likely to be much higher than those onland, or unless the values of minerals increase, itis apparent that the mining industry will have lessincentive to develop new technology than an indus-try like the petroleum industry. For example, thevalue of oil from a relatively small offshore fieldis likely to approach $1 billion. In comparison, areasonable target for an offshore placer gold depositmight have a value of $100 million—an order ofmagnitude less.

Massive sulfides and other primary mineral de-posits of the EEZ may some day present economictargets and offer incentives to development of min-ing technologies. These technologies are likely todepart significantly from dredging concepts andmay be more closely related to solution mining, off-

TECHNOLOGIES

shore petroleum recovery, or conventional tech-niques of hard rock mining.

Many of the technological advances made by theoffshore petroleum industry would find applicationsin offshore mining, provided the offshore mineraldeposits were rich enough to sustain the capital andoperating costs of such developments. This tech-nology transfer was demonstrated during the 1970swhen several groups of leading international com-panies in the mining industry sponsored develop-ment work on methods for mining manganese nod-ules from depths of about 15,000 feet. These groupshave delayed their plans for dredging nodules, pri-marily because prices for copper, nickel, cobalt, andmanganese continue to be low, but also because theinstitutional regime imposed on the exploitation ofthe international oceanfloor is still evolving,

AT-SEA PROCESSING

Mineral processing involves separating raw ma-terial (ore) from worthless constituents and trans-forming it into intermediate or final mineral prod-ucts. The number and type of steps involved in aparticular process may vary considerably depend-ing on the characteristics of the ore and the endproduct or products to be extracted. Mineral proc-essing encompasses a wide range of techniques fromrelatively straightforward mechanical operations(beneficiation) to complex chemical procedures.Processing may be needed for one or more of thefollowing tasks:

1.

2.

3.

To control particle size: This step may be un-dertaken either to make the material moreconvenient to handle for subsequent process-ing or, as in the case of sized aggregate, tomake a final product suitable for sale.To expose or release constituents for further

processing: Exposure and liberation areachieved by size reduction. For cases in whichminerals must be separated by physical proc-esses, an adequate amount of freeing of thedifferent minerals from each other is a prereq-uisite.To control composition: Constituents thatwould make ore difficult to process chemically

or would result in an inadequate final prod-uct must be eliminated or partially eliminated(e. g., chromite must be removed from ilme-nite ore in order to meet specifications for pig-ment). Often, an important need is to elimi-nate the bulk of the waste minerals from anore to produce a concentrate (beneficiation). 10

Processing of marine minerals may take placeeither on land or at sea or partly on both land andsea, depending on economic and technological con-siderations. Where processing is to be done whollyor partly at sea, it is integrated closely with the min-ing operation. However, since almost no mininghas taken place to date in the EEZ, offshore proc-essing experience is limited. Processing technologyfor minerals found on land has developed overmany centuries and, in contrast to requirementsfor offshore processing, has been designed to oper-ate on stable, motionless foundations and, with fewexceptions, to use fresh water.

It is usually not desirable to do all processing ofmarine minerals offshore. Final recovery may bedone onboard in the case of precious minerals, such

72-672 0 - 87 -- 7


as gold, platinum, and diamonds, but all otherminerals would probably be taken ashore as bulkconcentrates to be further processed. Trade-offsmust be considered in evaluating whether to par-tially process some minerals offshore. First, the costof transporting unbeneficiated ore to shore mustbe weighed against the added costs and capital ex-penses of putting a beneficiation plant offshore.Transportation to shore of a smaller amount of highgrade concentrate may be more economical thantransporting a larger amount of lower grade ore toshore for beneficiation and subsequent processing.(This is also a standard problem on land when eval-uating trade-offs between, for example, buildinga smelter or investing in transportation to an ex-isting smelter. ) Second, it is generally thought tobe easier and more economical to discharge tailings(waste materials) at sea than on land, but tailingsdischarge may result in unacceptable environmentalimpacts. Third, while seawater is an unlimitedsource of water for use in many phases of process-ing, its higher salinity could make processing moredifficult and concentrates could require additionalwashing with fresh water.

Important considerations in evaluating whetherto process minerals offshore may include the costof space aboard mining vessels and the sensitivityof some processing steps to vessel motion. Spaceis an important factor in the economics of a project.Since larger platforms cost more, engineers mustconsider the trade-offs between using a hull or plat-form large and stable enough to contain additionalprocessing equipment, power, fuel, storage space,and personnel and transporting unbeneficiated oreto shore. Although little experience is available, ves-sel motion may make some processing steps diffi-cult or impossible without motion compensationequipment and may significantly reduce the effi-ciency of recovering some minerals. Power require-ments are also of major concern because all powermust be generated onboard, thus requiring bothadditional space and costs. Personnel safety, theavailability of docking facilities, distance to refiner-ies, and production rates may also influence proc-essing decisions. 11

1lM.J. Cruickshank, ‘ ‘Marine Sand and Gravel Mining and Proc-essing Technologies, Marine Mining, in press.

Some basic development options include limit-ing the motion of the platform (e. g., by using asemi-submersible); isolating the processing equip-ment from platform motion (e. g., by mounting iton gimbals); redesigning the processing equipmentto make it more efficient at sea; or simply accept-ing lower grade concentrate by using existing and,hence, less costly equipment. In the case of mineralprocessing, an initial priority probably would beto test existing processing equipment at sea to ob-tain operating experience.

The costs and efficiency of operating a process-ing plant at sea are highly uncertain. For exam-ple, motion compensation of specific sections of theonboard plant or of major portions of the vessel isexpensive. For most minerals, further developmentof technology will be needed to optimize offshoremineral processing equipment and procedures. Ingeneral, one would probably attempt to performthe easy and relatively inexpensive processing stepsoffshore, such as size separation and rough grav-ity concentration, to reduce the bulk of materialto be transported, then complete the processing onland.

There are three broad categories of mineral proc-essing technology:

1.

2.

3.

technology for unconsolidated deposits ofchemically inert minerals,technology for unconsolidated or semi-consolidated deposits of chemically activeminerals, andtechnology for consolidated deposits of min-erals requiring crushing and size reduction.

Processing Unconsolidated Deposits ofChemically Inert Minerals

Chemically inert minerals include gold; plati-num; tin oxide (cassiterite); titanium oxides (il-menite, rutile, and leucoxene); zircon; monazite;diamonds; and a few others. These occur in na-ture as mineral grains in placers (see ch. 2) and areoften found mixed with clay, sand, and/or gravelparticles of various sizes. Since these minerals aregenerally heavier than the silicate and other min-erals with which they may be mixed, the use of me-chanical gravity separation methods is importantin processing (figure 5-14), However, the initial step


Figure 5-14.—Technologies for Processing Placer Mineral Ores

Gravityseparation

Refining

v

Offshore screening, sizing, and gravity separation may be adopted to reduce the amount of mate-rial that must be brought to shore. Drying and magnetic and electrostatic separation steps willmost likely take place ashore.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987.

in processing ores containing mineral grains of vari-ous sizes is usually size separation.

Size separation may be needed to control the sizeof material fed to other equipment in the process-ing stream, to reduce the volume of ore to be con-centrated to a minimum without losing the targetmineral(s), and/or to produce a product of equal

size particles. Separation is accomplished by useof various types of screens and classifiers. Screens—uniformly perforated (and sometimes vibrating)surfaces that allow only particles smaller than theaperture size to pass—are used for coarser materi-als.12 The size of screen holes varies with the ma-

‘‘Ibid


terial, production capacity of the dredge, and otherfactors. For example, sand and gravel alone mayconstitute the valuable mineral fraction. To be soldas commercial aggregate, sand and gravel are gen-erally screened to remove the undesirable very fineand very coarse fractions.

One type of size separation device in commonuse on dredges is the trommel. A trommel is sim-ply a rotating cylindrical screen, large enough andstrong enough to withstand the shock and abrasionof thousands of tons of sand and gravel sliding andtumbling through it each hour. If the material ismined by a bucket dredge, the material may be dis-aggregate by powerful water jets while it slidesdownward through a rotating trommel. If the ma-terial is mined by a suction dredge, it may alreadybe disaggregated but may need dewatering beforescreening. In either case gravity plays an impor-tant role, since the material must first be elevatedin order to slide downward through the screens.

Classifiers are used for separating particlessmaller than screens can handle. Classifiers sepa-rate particles according to their settling rate in afluid. One type in common use is the hydrocyclone.In this type of classifier, a mixture of ore and wateris pumped under pressure into an enclosed circu-lar chamber, generating a centrifugal force. Sepa-ration takes place as the heavier materials fall andare discharged from the bottom while the lighterparticles flow out the top. Hydrocyclones are me-chanically simple, require little space, and are in-expensive. Most offshore tin, diamond, and goldmining operations separate material by screeningand/or cycloning as a first step in mineral recovery.

Following size separation, gravity separationtechniques are used to concentrate most of theminerals in this category. By gravity, the valuableheavier minerals are separated from the lighter, lessvaluable or worthless constituents of the ore. Proc-essing by gravity concentration takes advantage ofthe differences in density among materials. Severaldifferent technologies have been developed, includ-ing jigs, spirals, sluices, cones, and shaking tables. 13

Jigging is the action of sorting heavier particlesin a pulsating water column. Using either air pres-sure or a piston, the pulsations are imparted to an

‘ ‘Ibid

introduced ore-water slurry. This action causes theheavier minerals to sink to the bottom, where theyare drawn off. Lighter particles are entrained inthe cross-flow and discharged as waste. Secondaryor tertiary jigs may be used for further concentra-tion. Several different types of jig have been de-veloped, including the circular jig, which has beenused extensively on offshore tin dredges in South-east Asia. Jigs also have been used successfully off-shore to process alluvial gold and diamonds. Forexample, they have proved effective in eliminat-ing 85 to 90 percent of the waste material from tinore (cassiterite) in Indonesia and from gold ore intests near Nome, Alaska.

Some jigs may be sensitive to the rolling andpitching motion of a mining dredge at sea, depend-ing in part on the severity of the motion and in parton their location aboard the dredge (usually highabove the deck to use gravity to advantage), Thishas not been a major problem on Indonesian off-shore bucket dredges, although sea conditions thereare not as rough as in other parts of the world. De-sign of dredges for less rolling motion and for re-duced sensitivity to wind forces (e. g., by placingthe processing plant and machinery below thewaterline) would alleviate this problem, Lower pro-file dredges could be designed without much diffi-culty, provided economic incentives existed to doso.

A simple gravity device for concentrating someplacer minerals onshore is a riffle box for sluicingmaterial. Although neither well understood norvery efficient, sluicing is the one of the oldest typesof processing technology for concentrating alluvialgold or tin. In addition to their simplicity, sluicesare rugged, passive, and inexpensive, Althoughsluices have not been used offshore, they might beutilized to beneficiate ore of low-value heavyminerals such as ilmenite or chromite.

Many other types of gravity separation devicesare used onshore to separate inert heavy mineralsfrom mixtures of ore and water. The most com-mon are spirals (e. g., Humphrey’s spirals) and cy-clones. Spirals (figure 5-1 5) are used extensivelyto concentrate ilmenite, rutile, zircon, monazite,chromite, and magnetite from silicate sands ofdunes and ancient shorelines. The effectiveness ofspirals mounted on platforms subject to wave mo-tions is not well known, but spirals have been used


Figure 5-15.—Operating Principles of ThreePlacer Mineral Separation Techniques

Spiral separator

b) Magnetic separator

Scraper

c) Electro-dynamic separator

‘ 0

Non-conductors Middlings Conductors

Gravity separation using spirals may be adapted for offshoreuse in some circumstances. Magnetic and electro-dynamicseparation will most likely be done on land.

SOURCE: E G KeHey and D J Introduction to Mineral Processing(New York John Wiley & Sons, 1982).

successfully for sample concentration on board ship.In operation, an ore-water slurry is introduced atthe top of the spiral. As the slurry spirals down-ward, the lighter minerals are thrown to the out-side by centrifugal force, while the heavy mineralsconcentrate along the inner part of the spiral. Theheavy minerals are split from the slurry stream andsaved. Spirals have lower rates of throughput thanjigs. Moreover, more space would be required toprocess an equal volume of minerals, and spiralsare unsuited for separating particles larger thanabout one-quarter inch,

Another form of heavy mineral processing thatmay have applications offshore is heavy media sep-aration. This gravity separation technique uses adense material in liquid suspension (the heavymedium) to separate heavy minerals from lightermaterials. The ‘‘heavies’ sink to the bottom of theheavy medium, while lighter materials, such as sili-cates, float away. The heavy liquid is then recir-culated. This technique has been used effectivelyoffshore to recover diamonds. However, it is ex-pensive and its use may contaminate seawater.

Initial “wet” concentration at sea results in aprimary concentrate. Much of the technology forsize classification and gravity separation of mineralsappears to be adaptable for use at sea for makingprimary concentrates without major technologicalproblems. For further preparation for sale, concen-trates of heavy minerals are usually dried and sep-arated on shore. For example, ilmenite and magne-tite are considered impurities in tin ore and mustbe eliminated. Producing heavy mineral concen-trates for final sale may also involve further grav-ity separation, drying in kilns, and/or elaboratemagnetic and electrostatic separation operations.

Magnetic separation is possible for those mineralswith magnetic properties (figure 15-5). For exam-ple, magnetite may be separated from other heavyminerals using a low-intensity magnetic separationtechnique. Ilmenite or other less strongly magneticminerals may be separated from nonmagnetic min-erals using a high-intensity technique. Separationat sea of strongly magnetic minerals is possible, butseparation of minerals with small differences inmagnetic susceptibility may have to be done onland. Magnetite has the highest magnetic suscep-tibility. In decreasing order of susceptibility are il-menite and chromite; epidote and xenotime; apa-tite, monazite, and hematite; and staurolite.


Conducting minerals may be separated fromnonconductors using electrostatic separation. Onlya few minerals are concentrated using this method,but electrostatic separation is used very successfullyto separate heavy mineral beach sands, such as ru-tile and ilmenite from zircon and monazite. 14 Fig-ure 5-15 illustrates how conducting and noncon-ducting minerals and “middlings” are split fromeach other using an electro-dynamic separator.During processing, the feed particles acquire anelectrical charge from an ionizing electrode. Con-ducting minerals lose their charge to the groundedrotor and are thrown from the rotor’s surface. Anon-ionizing electrode is then used to attract con-ducting minerals further away from the rotor. Non-conductors do not lose their charge as rapidly andso adhere to the grounded rotor until they do losetheir charge or are brushed off. Middlings may berun through the electrostatic separator again. 15Electrostatic separation is usually combined withgravity and magnetic separation methods when sep-arating minerals from each other.

Many of these technologies require adjustments,depending in part on the volume and grade of orepassing through the plant and on the ratio of in-put ore to output concentrate or final product. Theratios of valuable mineral to ore mined are shownin table 5-3 for some typical heavy minerals. Theamount of primary concentrate produced by jigson a dredge mining 30,000 cubic yards of gold oreper day would be on the order of a few tons (de-pending on the other heavy minerals present); ini-tial processing of 30,000 cubic yards per day ofilmenite ore would yield a few hundred tons of pri-mary concentrate.

The amount of machinery, space, and powerneeded for producing a final concentrate or prod-uct varies widely for different minerals. Final sep-aration and recovery of ilmenite, rutile, zircon, and

“Ibid.151bid.

Table 5-3.—Ratio of Valuable Mineral to Ore

In ore mined In primary concentrate

Diamonds . . . . . . . 1:5,000,000 1:1 ,000Gold, platinum . . . 1:2,000,000 1:1,000Tin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:1 ,000 1:100Ilmenite, etc. . . . . 1:100 1:10SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.

monazite require elaborate plants that occupy largespaces and consume large amounts of energy.These heavy minerals are first dried in long kilns,then passed through batteries of magnetic and elec-trostatic separators. Experience using these tech-nologies is mostly on land, and there do not ap-pear to be any economic advantages to undertakingfinal separation and recovery of these minerals off-shore. Conversely, technologies for final recoveryof diamonds, gold, and tin occupy little space andconsume little power. Some techniques (e. g., shak-ing tables) require flat, level platforms. Final re-covery of gold by amalgamation with mercury canbe easily done at sea if the mercury is safely con-tained. Final separation of diamonds from concen-trates is done using X-rays.

Processing Unconsolidated or Semi-Consolidated Deposits of Chemically

Active Minerals

Examples of unconsolidated or semi-consolidateddeposits of chemically active minerals include min-erals found in such deposits as the Red Sea brinesand sulfide-bearing sediments on the Outer Con-tinental Shelf. In general, the minerals of economicinterest in ore deposits of this type are complex sul-fides of base metals such as copper and zinc, andminor quantities of precious metals (mainly silver).

This type of mineral is generally concentratedon land using flotation technology (figure 5-16).Flotation concentration is based on the surfacechemistr y of mineral particles in solution. Meth-ods vary, but all employ chemical reagents that in-teract with finely crushed sulfide particles to makethem selectively hydrophobic. The solution is aer-ated, and the hydrophobic minerals adhere to theair bubbles and float to the surface (other mineralparticles sink to the bottom), A froth containing thefloated minerals is formed at the surface of the so-lution and is drawn off.16 Flotation concentrates arecollected on filters and dried prior to further pyro-metallurgical processing (e. g., smelting) to sepa-rate individual metals.

Experimental flotation of metalliferous muds ata pilot-scale plant in the Red Sea is the only ex-perience using this process offshore. Since wind,

‘“Ibid.


Figure 5-16.—Technologies for Processing Offshore Mineral Ores

Consolidated deposits of nodules, crusts, and massive sulfides require crushing and grindingin addition to the screening required for brines and muds. Flotation is the primary techniquefor separating oxides and sulfides of metals from waste material. These processes have notyet been adapted for use offshore.


wave, and current conditions in the Red Sea arenot as severe as in the open ocean, these tests arenot conclusive regarding the sensitivity of flotationmethods to ship motion. Disposal of flotation re-agents at sea may be a problem in some cases andshould be further investigated.

Processing Consolidated andComplex Mineral Ores

Mineral deposits in this category include nod-ules, crusts, veins, pavements, and massive depos-its, as of metalliferous sulfides or oxides. Process-


ing of these minerals is likely to require crushingor grinding to reduce particle size, followed bychemical separation methods. In some cases (i. e.,for gold veins) fine grinding may liberate mineralswhich then may be recovered using gravity sepa-ration alone. However, in most cases some flota-tion and/or other chemical processing is likely to berequired. The Bureau of Mines has experimentedwith column flotation techniques for separation ofcobalt-rich manganese crust from substrate. Crust

separated in this manner, however, cannot simplybe concentrated by inexpensive mineral process-ing techniques. Most of these processes have notbeen adapted for use at sea. Crushing and grind-ing circuits could be mounted on floating platformsor on the seafloor, but unless the economic incen-tive to mine this type of seafloor deposit improves,these techniques will not likely be used offshore inthe near future. The same comment applies to flo-tation and other chemical processing technologies.

OFFSHORE MINING SCENARIOS

To illustrate the feasibility of offshore mining,OTA constructed five scenarios, each depicting aprospective mining operation in an area where ele-vated concentrations of potentially valuable min-erals are known to occur. The scenarios illustratefactors affecting the feasibility of offshore mining,including the physical and environmental condi-tions that may be encountered offshore, the capa-bilities of the available mining and processing tech-nologies, and estimated costs to mine and processoffshore minerals. The scenarios selected includemining of:

●

●

●

●

●

titanium-rich sands off the Georgia coast,chromite sands off the Oregon coast,gold off the Alaska coast near Nome,phosphorite off the Georgia coast near TybeeIsland, andphosphorite in Onslow Bay off the NorthCarolina coast.

These shallow-water mineral deposits were selectedbecause they are judged to be potentially mineablein the near term, unlike, for example, deposits ofcobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts or massive sul-fides, both of which would require considerableengineering research and development.

For each scenario, the ocean environments areconsidered to be acceptable for dredging operations,dredging technologies are judged to be availablewith little modification, and existing processingtechnologies are considered adaptable for shipboarduse, although some development will be needed.The greatest uncertainties arise from lack of dataon the nature of the placer deposits (except forNome, reserves have not been proven by drilling)

and from the lack of operating experience underconditions encountered in the U.S. EEZ (i. e.,waves and long-period swells).

OTA did not attempt detailed engineering andcost analyses. Too little information is currentlyavailable to accurately assess the profitability of off-shore mining. For example, the grade of ore mayvary considerably throughout a deposit, but littleinformation about grade variability has been com-piled yet at any site. Estimates of mining and proc-essing costs can vary considerably depending onthe amount of information on which they are based.Given that estimates cannot now be based on de-tailed information, OTA has attempted simply toestimate the range within which costs are most likelyto fall. Rough estimates do not satisfy the need fordetailed feasibility studies based on comprehensivedata; however, they do provide criteria with whichto judge if recovery of large quantities of high grade,valuable minerals on the seabed is likely to beprofitable or at least competitive with land-basedsources of minerals.

Similar scenarios for titanium, chromite, andgold placers also have been developed recently bythe U.S. Bureau of Mines. 17 The scenarios are notdirectly comparable, but, after allowing for differ-ent assumptions and uncertainty, the general con-clusions reached are roughly the same. Tables 5-9, 5-10, and 5-11 at the end of the chapter com-pare OTA and Bureau of Mines scenarios.

t ?,4n ~Tc.onomlc Rec.onIJalssanc(. [)f’.$c.]e(.tt,~ Hcai,}. .kfineral ~’iarer

Deposits in the U.S. Exclusi\e EC onomir Zone. Open File Report4-87 (Washington. D. C.: U.S. Ilurcau 01 hlincs, January 1987),


Offshore Titaniferous SandsMining Scenario

Location. —Concentrations of titaniferous sandsare known to occur on the seabed adjacent to thecoast of Georgia (figure 5-17). These sands consti-tute a resource of titanium oxide minerals (primar-ily ilmenite, but also lesser amounts of rutile andleucoxene, (figure 5-18)) and associated light heavyminerals. However, little detailed exploration hasbeen done in the area, so the extent and grade ofthe resource is not precisely known.

Two mineral companies that mine onshore titan-iferous sands in nearby northeastern Florida haveexpressed interest in the area. In fact, in 1986, theMinerals Management Service issued geologicaland geophysical exploration permits to AssociatedMinerals U. S. A., Ltd., and E.I. du Pont de Nemours& Co. The companies have undertaken shallow cor-ing, sub-bottom profiling, and radiometric surveysin the area. The area of interest extends from Ty-bee Island in the north to Jekyll Island in the south,a distance of about 85 nautical miles, and from Statewaters to about 30 nautical miles offshore. Theproximity of onshore titanium mineral processingfacilities in northeastern Florida is a particular rea-son this scenario site was selected over other po-tential sites on the Atlantic Ocean continental shelf.

Operational and Geological Characteristics.—Within this area, a typical mine site was selectedapproximately 30 nautical miles offshore. Waterdepths at this site average 100 feet. Northeasterlywinds tend to prevail from October to March. Thesite is in the path of occasional ‘‘northeasters’ andhurricanes, but wind, wave, tide, and current con-ditions are otherwise moderate. Wave heights of6 feet are common during winter months, butwaves of 1 to 4 feet are more typical the rest of theyear. Infrequent severe storms may produce wavesin excess of 20 feet, typically from the southeast ornortheast. It is assumed that operations can be con-ducted 300 days per year.

The geological features of the site were identi-fied primarily by sub-bottom profiling and includeburied stream channels and submerged shorelines.A similar ancient shoreline target onshore in north-eastern Florida would be 12 miles long, 1 mile wide,and 20 feet thick. Little is known about any over-

burden at this time, so it is assumed that the de-posit, like similar deposits onshore at Trail Ridge,Florida, consists of unconsolidated heavy mineralsands without significant overlying sediments.

The average concentration of total heavy min-erals in the ore is assumed to be between 5 and 15percent by weight, about half of which are economicheavy minerals. This range includes the averagegrade of the heavy mineral concentrations detectedin the few samples from the site that have been ana-lyzed to date.

Mining Technology. —The most appropriatetechnology for mining titaniferous minerals at theselected site is considered to be a trailing suctionhopper dredge. This dredge is capable of operat-ing in the open ocean at the mining site and ofshuttling to and from its shore base during the nor-mal seas expected in this region. Trailing suctionhopper dredges have been widely used for sand andgravel mining and for removing unconsolidatedmaterial from harbors and channels. It is assumedthat the titaniferous sand is at most only mildlycompacted. The unconsolidated mineral sands aresucked up the drag arms, which can adjust to ves-sel heave and pitch to maintain the suction headon the seabed. A booster pump is installed in thesuction line, enabling the dredge to reach mineralsat the assumed bottom of the mineralized zone,about 120 feet below sea level. If cutting force isneeded to loosen the compacted sand and clay,high-pressure water jets and cutting teeth can beadded to the suction head. A dredge with a hop-per capacity of 5,000 cubic yards is used. Thedredge is assumed to be of U.S. registry, built andoperated according to Coast Guard regulations, andmore expensive than a similar dredge built abroad.All equipment is assumed to be purchased new at1987 market prices.

At-Sea Processing. —The dredge is outfittedwith a wet primary concentration plant capable ofproducing 450,000 tons per year of heavy mineralconcentrate for delivery to a dry mill on shore. Theefficiency of economic heavy mineral recovery isassumed to be 70 percent for the wet plant and 87.5percent for the dry plant. The final product con-centrate supplies the raw material for a pigmentplant. It is assumed that no major technical prob-lems are encountered in designing the primary con-


Figure 5-17.— Offshore Titaniferous Mineral Province, Southeast United States

J

Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; Hathaway, and “Placer Deposits of Heavy Minerals in Atlantic Continental ShelfSediments,” Proceedings of the 18th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, May 5-8,

centration plant to compensate for operation on a and 5 percent. Larger pumps consuming moremoving vessel, and that the processing subsystemsdo not require significant and/or expensive devel-opment work. The onboard processing plant pro-duces the primary concentrate using conventionalparticle size separation and gravity separationequipment. Seawater is used in the gravity sepa-ration process. Production of 450,000 short tonsper year of primary concentrate implies miningrates between 3.2 million and 9.5 million short tonsof ore per year, corresponding to ore grades of 15

power would be required to mine 5 percent ore atthe same rate as 15 percent ore.

Mining and At-Sea Processing Cycle.—Themining and at-sea processing cycle consists of fivesteps:

1. The dredge steams to the mining site,2. it dredges material from the seabed,3. it preconcentrates the ore and fills up the

hopper,


Figure 5-18.—Values of TiO 2 Content of Common Titanium MineralConcentrates and Intermediates

I and Brown, “Offshore Mineral Placers: Processing and Related Considerations.”contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November

1.00 .---,..---,..---,..---,..---,--.-,----,----,-----,-----,---.

::t""·· .j ~\j Ii

I : illCl .:. Iii i

I S' 1~ ... 'i 8

7 e 5

4

3

2

+

iii T I'Syntetic

! ] rutile " <>RUUle

JI\nenite ! con~entratf~

I ! I !

! ! j

1

)

: ~A~stralia! I I

.i. __

I conc~ntrate

teucox~ne Rfthard'st e,y slag!

. "j I

1 I i t

1~ __ ~~ __ ~ __ -L __ _L __ ~ __ ~ __ ~--~~~--1

o 10 20 30 40 50 eo 70 eo 90 100 110 TIO content ~ • . , I

19 D II Inenite I I :- I bea h san s 11m nite II anite Tita la • or and bea h san sis i

cone ntrat con entratE 5 I

I I

I

, 'I

I !

I I

~ure ,,"00 00. ~ , FeTiO, Rutil cone ntrate !

!

1 , and ynthet c rutil ,i

i I I TIO, Igmen s: rutilt i I and. natas grade I

! j i i ! i I

SOURCE:w.w,Harvey F.e. Titanium Heavv


4. steams to the shore base, and5. it discharges the preconcentrate from the

hopper.

Each of these cycles takes 4 days: 3 days for dredg-ing and processing and 1 day for transit and offload-ing. Seventy-five such cycles per year can be madeusing a trailing suction hopper dredge with a 5,000 -cubic-yard hopper capacity. This allows 60 daysper year for drydocking, maintenance, and down-time due to weather or other contingencies. Theaverage distance from offshore deposits to the shore-side discharge point is estimated to be 100 miles.

The requirement to stop dredging and return toport could be eliminated by loading shuttle bargesinstead of filling the dredge hoppers. Other alter-natives to the scenario probably would be evalu-ated by prospective miners who, for example, mightprocess to a higher concentrate grade offshore.

Capital and Operating Costs.—Total capitalrequirements are estimated to range from $55 mil-lion to $86 million, depending on average ore grade(ranging from 15 to 5 percent respectively). Capi-tal costs include costs of the dredge, onboard wetmill, onshore unloading installation, dry mill, andworking capital (table 5-4). Capital costs for boththe dredge and onboard wet mill decrease as theore grade increases because less mining (pumping)capacity is required. Total operating costs arehigher for lower grade ore because more ore mustbe mined by a larger dredge to produce the sameamount of concentrate. Annual costs to operate thedredge, wet mill, and dry mill, and for general and

Table 5-4.—Offshore Titaniferous Sands MiningScenario: Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

Ore grade

50/0 10 ”/0 15%0

Capital costs (million $):Dredge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .$40 $36 $32Offshore processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 18 14Onshore processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4Working capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 5

Total capital costs , ... ... ... ... .$86 $64 $55

Annual operating costs (million $):Dredge and offshore processing ... .$17 $14 $12Onshore processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2General and administrative . . . . . . . . . 2 1 1Depreciation expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11 10

Total operating costs ... ... ... .. .$37 $28 $25SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.

administrative expenses and depreciation are esti-mated to be from $25 million to $37 million, de-pending on the heavy mineral content(15 to 5 per-cent). Given these estimates for capital andoperating costs, breakeven revenue requirementshave been calculated to range from $170 to $250per ton of marketable product.

Given the risks inherent in developing an offshoredeposit, the developers would expect higher returnsthan for a conventional land-based mineral sandsoperation and require a more rapid payback on in-vestment. For example, under the 1986 tax law,a 3-year payback would require revenues of be-tween $420 and $280 per ton of product for oregrades ranging from 5 to 15 percent. Since the cur-rent U.S. east coast price of ilmenite concentrateis $45 to $50 per short ton, it is clear that the de-posit would require appreciable concentrations ofother valuable minerals (e, g., rutile, zircon, and/ormonazite with values ranging from $180 to $500per ton) to be profitable.

Offshore Chromite SandsMining Scenario

Location. —Concentrations of heavy mineralsands containing primarily chromite, lesser amountsof ilmenite, rutile, and zircon, and traces of goldand other minerals occur in surface and near-sur-face deposits on the continental shelf off southernOregon (figure 5-19). Many reconnaissance sur-veys conducted by academic researchers have beencompleted in the area, but no detailed mineral ex-ploration has taken place. The largest heavymineral sand area appears to extend westward fromthe mouth of the Rogue River and northwardtoward Cape Blanco. A second area of chromite-rich black sands is located seaward of the mouthof the Sixes River. Additional small deposits oc-cur on the continental shelf and on uplifted ma-rine terraces between Coos Bay and Bandon. TheRogue River deposits are approximately 75 milessouth of Coos Bay, the nearest deep-water indus-trial port, and 100 miles north of the port of Eu-reka, California.

No State or Federal exploration permits havebeen issued in the area to the private sector. How-ever, one company, Oregon Coastal Services, hasexpressed interest in obtaining a permit to explorefor minerals in State waters.


Figure 5-19.— Offshore Chromite Sands,Oregon Continental Shelf

PacificOcean

SOURCE: Adapted from T Parmenter and R Bailey, The Oregon Ocean Book(Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Develop.ment, 1985), p. 21

Operational and Geological Characteristics.—The site selected for this scenario lies seaward ofthe Rogue River, from 2 to 4 miles offshore. Waterdepths in the vicinity of the mine site are between150 and 300 feet. The main deposit is assumed tobe roughly 22 miles long by 6 miles wide and strad-dles the boundary between State and Federalwaters.

Summer waves, generally from the northwest,are driven by strong onshore winds and range inheight from 2 to 10 feet. In winter, waves arecharacteristically from the west or southwest andaverage 3 to 20 feet. The most severe storms, whichoccur from November through March, may occa-sionally produce wave heights in excess of 60 feet.The severity of the wave regime off the coast of Ore-gon has been compared to that of the North Sea.In addition to weather, a seasonal factor that mayaffect mining activity is prior use of the area by sealions as a breeding ground and by salmon fisher-men for sport and commercial fishing.

Coastal terrace deposits between Coos Bay andBandon, north of the scenario site, are likely ana-logs of potential continental shelf placers (see ch.2). Most samples taken from these deposits havecontained from 6 percent to as much as 13 percentchromite, usually concentrated in the bottom 3 to15 feet of the stratigraphic section, although sam-ples containing as much as 25 percent chromitehave been taken in some places .18

This scenario assumes that offshore placers con-tain similar grades of chromite and that the aver-age grade is closer to 6 percent. Magnetic anomalystudies associated with surface concentrations in thescenario area suggest that the potential placer bodieslie beneath a sediment overburden that ranges fromless than 3 feet to more than 100 feet thick. Theore body thickness at the mining site is assumedto be less than 25 feet.

Mining Technology. —This scenario assumesthat the chromite placers are largely unconsolidateddeposits and that a trailing suction hopper dredgesimilar to the one used in the titanium sands sce-nario is applicable for mining. The dredge isequipped with twin 3,400-horsepower suctionpumps, giving it a greater suction capacity than thedredge used to mine titanium sands.

Dredging in rough seas at depths ranging from150 to 300 feet will require a special design; how-ever, it is assumed this need will not present greatertechnical problems or costs than, for example,building dredges or pipe-laying vessels for the NorthSea. The dredge is similar in its other characteris-tics to the hopper dredge described in the titaniumsands scenario.

At-Sea Processing. —High volumes of ore canbe brought to the surface at relatively low cost, buttransporting the material to shore is costly. There-fore, there is an incentive to enrich the ore as muchas economically and technically feasible prior totransporting it to shore. This scenario assumes pri-mary beneficiation at sea by a simple, low-cost proc-ess of screening and gravity separation. The sys-tem might incorporate devices such as cones, jigs,spirals, or a very large sluice box. As in the titanium

I HI ,a\Tcrnc D, KU I1ll, CO1]C,K[. 01’ occano Kral)h\.. O r e g o n s[~~tt’

L’ni\crsity, OTA t$’orkshop on Pacific Nlinerals, Ncwporr. Oregon,No\. 20, 1986.


sand mining scenario, the effect of vessel motionon these devices needs to be evaluated. It is assumedthat 30 to 50 percent of the dredged ore will be kepton the vessel and that the tailings will be continu-ously discharged by pipe back to the seafloor.

There are no at-sea processing plants of this typein operation. Additional investigation is needed toevaluate the feasibility and to determine the capi-tal and operating costs of this system, but it is as-sumed that the development engineering requiredwill not entail major costs.

Mining and At-Sea Processing Cycle.—In-creased suction capacity plus a shorter distance todockside and less elaborate processing at sea en-able the dredge to deliver 5,000 tons of enrichedore to shore per day (rather than every third dayas in the case of the titanium sands scenario). Un-der normal operating conditions, the dredge is as-sumed to take about 3 hours to fill to capacity. Thevessel then steams an average distance of 75 milesfor offloading at a shore facility. Transit time is esti-mated to average about 8 hours, offloading timeless than 5 hours; hence, the vessel would be ableto make one round trip per day. At dockside thedredge would be offloaded using either a dry scraperor its own pumps. Pumped transfer decreases off-loading time. If this method is used, the ore ispumped into a dewatering bin and from there trans-ported by conveyor belt to a stockpile. It is assumedthat the mining and processing system can be de-signed so that mining and processing at sea can takeplace 300 days a year. This would leave 65 days

for downtime due to bad weather or sea conditions,for drydocking and maintenance, and for other un-foreseen events. Under these assumptions, 1.5 mil-lion tons of chromite-rich concentrate are deliveredyearly to the offloading plant onshore.

Capital and Operating Costs.—Capital andoperating costs (table 5-5) were estimated for min-ing, at-sea processing, transportation, and offload-ing at a shoreside facility, but not for subsequentprocessing on land. Capital costs amount to approx-imately $57 million for an operation that uses allnew equipment developed for the project and builtin the United States. These include a dredge ($40million), shipboard primary beneficiation plant ($5million), shoreside facility (about $5 million), anddesign, engineering, and management ($7 million).Annual operating costs are estimated to be approx-imately $20 million; this figure includes costs tooperate the dredge and shore facility and generaland administrative expenses.

Based on the above figures and assumptions, thecost of delivering enriched chromite sand to a shore-based facility was calculated. In terms of dollars perton of beneficiated ore, the range is between $12.50and $22. The lower cost assumes the use of a sec-ondhand dredge. The higher cost includes a 20 per-cent internal rate of return which is assumed to bea realistic goal in view of the uncertainties (espe-cially operating time) that surround the project. (Ifthe yearly operating time were reduced to 150 days,the costs of delivering concentrates would doubleto between $25 and $44 per ton).

Table 5-5.—Offshore Chromite Sands Mining Scenario:Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

Millions of dollarsC a p i t a l C o s t s :

Suction hopper dredge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $40.0Shipboard primary beneficiation plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0Shoreside facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0Engineering procurement and management (15%) . . . . 7.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $57.5

New equipment Used equipment(excluding profit (excluding profit

and risk) and risk)Annual operating costs:Dredge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17 $15Shore facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2General and administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2

Annual total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22 $19SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987,


Box 5-A.—Sand and Gravel Mining

Mining offshore sand and gravel is likely to be profitable at selected sites well before mining of mostother offshore minerals. Sand and gravel occurs in enormous quantities on the U.S. continental shelf. How-ever, due to onshore sources of supply in many parts of the country, the low unit value of the resource, andsignificant costs to transport sand and gravel long distances, profitable offshore sand and gravel mining islikely to be restricted to areas near major metropolitan centers that have depleted nearby onshore sourcesand/or have encountered conflicting land use problems.

Sand and gravel are currently being dredged in State waters in the Ambrose Channel between New Yorkand New Jersey. This operation, begun 2 years ago, is the only offshore sand and gravel mining currentlytaking place in U.S. waters. The Great Lakes Dredge& Dock Co., the dredge operator, mines approximately1.5 million cubic yards per year of high-quality fine aggregate from the channel. This aggregate is sold tothe concrete ready-mix industry in the New York/New Jersey area at an average delivered price of $11.50per cubic yard. The Federal Government benefits from this operation because it enables the Ambrose Chan-nel, which is a major navigation channel into New York Harbor, to be maintained at significant savings tothe government. In addition, both New York and New Jersey receive royalties of 25 cents per cubic yardof aggregate mined.

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock uses one trailing suction hopper dredge in its operation. The dredge is au-thorized to mine to a depth of 53 feet below the mean low water mark. When full, the dredge proceeds toa mooring point about one-half mile offshore South Amboy, New Jersey. The aggregate is then pumped toshore via a pipeline. The company estimates that there is enough sand and gravel in the channel to operatefor 10 to 15 more years (longer if the channel is widened and/or deepened).

Sand and gravel mining has not yet occurred in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, but the Bureau ofMines has tentatively identified two metropolitan areas, New York and Boston, where significant potentialexists for the near-term development of offshore sand and gravel deposits. * Local onshore supplies are fastbecoming depleted in these areas. The Bureau estimates that, for both areas, dredge and plant capital costswould range from a low of about $21 million for a 1.3-million cubic-yard-per-year operation 10 nautical milesfrom an onshore plant to a high of $145 million for a 6.7-million cubic-yard-per-year operation 80 nauticalmiles from shore. Operating costs for a product that has been screened (i.e., sorted) are estimated to rangefrom about $3.30 per cubic yard for the smaller nearshore operation to $4.00 for the larger, more distantoperation. Estimates are based on 250 operating days per year for the dredge and 323 for the plant. Othercities where offshore sand and gravel eventuality could be competitive include Los Angeles, San Juan, andHonolulu.

● An Econozm”c Rcxonnaisaance of Sehxtcd Sand and Gavei Ikpoa’ts in the U.S. Exduu”w Eeanomic Zone, Open File Report 3-87 (Washington,~: U.S. Bureau of Mines, January 1987).

There are no active facilities for processing chro-mite in the Pacific Northwest. Ferrochromiumplants and chromium chemicals and refractoriesproducers are concentrated in the eastern half ofthe country. However, one company, SherwoodPacific Ltd., was recently formed for the purposeof constructing and operating a chromium smelterin Coos Bay, Oregon. Coos Bay has a deep draftship channel, rail access, land, and a work force.Initial raw material for the smelter is expected tocome from onshore deposits in southern Oregonand northern California.

The costs per ton of concentrate projected in thisscenario allow only small margins to make and dis-

tribute a finished product, currently worth about$40 per ton. Hence, it is clear that chromite alonewould not be worth recovering. Unless the priceof chromite were to increase or byproducts such asgold or zircon could be economically recovered, thecosts projected in this scenario do not justify eco-nomic chromite mining in the near future.

Offshore Placer Gold Mining Scenario

Location.—Gold-bearing beach sands were dis-covered and mined at Nome, Alaska, in 1906. Min-ing gradually extended inland from the currentshoreline to old shorelines now above sea level. By


1906, about 4.5 million ounces of alluvial gold hadbeen mined from a 55-square-mile area. Earlyminers recognized that the Nome gold placers wereformed by wave action and that additional depos-its, formed when sea levels were lower, should befound in the adjacent offshore area (figure 5-20).

Two U.S. companies, ASARCO and Shell OilCo., sampled offshore deposits near Nome in 1964and recovered alluvial gold. By 1969, proven re-serves offshore of approximately 100 million cubicyards of ore had been established. The rights tothese reserves were acquired in 1985 by Inspira-tion Resources, which then began a pilot miningand testing program. This program was followedby mining tests with a bucket ladder dredge in 1986.All operations to date have taken place within 3miles of shore in waters under the jurisdiction ofthe State of Alaska, although gold resources havebeen identified out to about 10 miles. The futureoffshore gold mining operation is examined in thisscenario, based on a number of assumptions.

Operational and Geological Characteristics.—Nome is a small town near the Arctic Circle on Nor-ton Sound, a large shallow bay open to the west.Water depths in the bay do not exceed 100 feet.Ten miles offshore water is only 60 feet deep. Gold-bearing sediments are a maximum of 30 feet thickand consist of bedded sands, gravels, and claysalternating with occasional beds of cobbles andboulders. These sediments were sampled from theice out to about 1½ miles from the coast, Gold hasbeen found further offshore, but reserves have notyet been fully delineated. Current mining sites arelocated less than 1 ½ miles offshore in water depthsaveraging 30 feet and in formations 6 to 30 feetthick.

Only between June and October is NortonSound ice-free and accessible to floating vessels.During the winter, thick pack ice forms over theSound. Waves reportedly do not exceed periods of7 seconds, but occasional sea-swells with longerperiods may come from the west or southwest. Pre-dominant winds are from the north and northeast.Currents and longshore drift are westward. Maxi-mum tides are 6 feet.

Mining Technology.--The Bima, a bucket lad-der dredge built in 1979 for mining tin offshore In-donesia, was selected to mine the offshore gold

placers. The Bima was brought to Nome in July1986 for preliminary tests. It was modified in Seattleand is scheduled to begin operation in July 1987.The Bima was designed and built abroad as a sea-going mining vessel. Its hull is 361 feet long, 98feet wide, and 21 feet deep. The entire vessel is ofsteel construction and weighs about 15,000 shorttons, including the dredging ladder and machin-ery. Freeboard is 10 feet and draft 15 feet with theladder retracted.

The Bima is not self-propelled. It must be movedto and from the mining site by a tugboat. On site,the dredge is kept in position by five mooring linesattached to 7-ton Danforth anchors. This anchor-ing arrangement allows the dredge to swing 600 feetfrom side to side and to advance while digging. Theanchors are positioned and moved by a special aux-iliary vessel.

A 15,000-horsepower diesel-electric powerplantis used to operate the bucketline, the ore process-ing plant, the anchor winches, and the auxiliarysystems. There is fuel storage on board for 2½months of operation.

The Bima’s dredge ladder and bucketline wereoriginally designed to operate in 150 feet of water.This scenario assumes that the dredge ladder hasbeen shortened, so that the dredge is able to minefrom 25 to 100 feet below the water line at the rateof 33 cubic yards per minute or approximately2,000 cubic yards per hour. The Bima was designedto enable the mass of the ladder and bucketline tobe decoupled from the motions of the hull by anautomated system of hydraulic and air cylindersthat act like very large springs. This feature keepsthe buckets digging against the dredging face onthe seabed while the hull may be heaving or pitch-ing due to the motions of passing waves. Duringthe trials of the Bima in Norton Sound from Julyto October 1986, it was not necessary to activatethe system.

At-Sea Processing. —The Bima is equipped witha gravity processing plant to make a gold concen-trate at the mining site. The throughput capacityof the plant is 2,000 cubic yards per hour, The plantconsists of two parallel inclined rotary trommels 18feet in diameter and 60 feet long. After removalof any large boulders, ore brought up by the dredgebucket slides down the trommels under the spray


Figure 5-20.— Nome, Alaska Placer Gold District

.

X Mined gold 30 water o 5 milesplacers depth I 1 I

Pliocenebeach

‘/

0 2 miles

Explanation

❑ Alluvium Glacial drift ❑ Beach sediments ❑ Marine silt and clay

❑ Stratified rocks of unknown type ❑ Bedrock

Generalized geologic profile of Nome beaches.

SOURCE Adapted from E H U S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1374


BIMA Bucketline Dredge Photo credit:

of powerful jets of seawater. The water jets are used Material retained by the trommel is distributedto break up the clay and force sand and gravel in a seawater mixture to three circuits of jigs, be-smaller than three-eighths inch to pass through the ginning with six primary circular jigs 24 feet in di-trommel. Material coarser than three-eighths inch ameter. The concentrates from the circular jigs areis discharged over the stern. then fed to crossflow secondary and tertiary jigs.


The jig concentrates are further refined on shak-ing tables before transport to shore for final goldseparation and smelting into bullion. It is expectedthat about 22 pounds of gold concentrate will beproduced by mining and processing approximately50,000 tons of ore per day, The actual amounts ofconcentrate produced will depend on the quantityof heavy minerals associated with the gold at eachlocation.

Environmental Effects.— The ore processingplant on the Bima returns 99.9 percent of the proc-essed material to the seabed as tailings. Since thetailings do not undergo chemical treatment, localturbidity caused by particles that may remain insuspension is likely to be the most significant envi-ronmental impact. During pilot plant tests in 1985,Inspiration Resources found that turbidity couldbe minimized by discharging fine tailings througha flexible pipe near the seabed. Other potentialenvironmental impacts could occur if diesel fuel isspilled, either as it is being transferred to the Bimaor as a result of accidental piercing of the hull.

Operating Conditions.—The Bima operatesonly between June and October (five months peryear) because ice on Norton Sound prohibits oper-ations during the winter months. Thus, withoutbreakdowns or downtime due to weather and othercauses, a theoretical yearly production of about 7.5million cubic yards of ore is possible. During testsin 1986, Bima operated only a small fraction of thetime available. This was due more to the natureof the trials than to downtime related to winds and

waves. Assuming a mining efficiency (bucket fill-ing) of 75 percent and an operating efficiency of80 percent (allowing for time to move and down-time due to weather), yearly production is limitedto 4.5 million cubic yards. If gold grades of 0.012to 0.016 ounces per cubic yard of ore are assumed,the yearly gold production would be between 1.75and 2.20 short tons (before any losses due to proc-essing and refining).

The Bima will have a crew averaging 12 personsper watch, 3 watches per day. Personnel are trans-ported to and from Nome daily by helicopter. Theoperation also requires extensive maintenance, sup-ply, and administrative facilities onshore. These fa-cilities will be manned by an additional 46 personsduring the operating season. During the wintermonths, the Bima will be laid up in Nome harbor,and most of the operating personnel will be onleave.

Capital and Operating Costs.—Capital andoperating cost estimates (table 5-6) are based ona number of assumptions and, like the otherscenarios in this report, must be considered firstorder approximations. The estimates rely in parton published information that the Bima gold min-ing project will have a life of 16 years and will re-cover about 48,000 troy ounces of gold per yearat operating costs of less than $200 per ounce.

The Bima was constructed at a cost of $33 mil-lion in 1979. It is assumed that its purchase in 1986as used equipment (sold because of the fall in the

Table 5-6.—Offshore Placer Gold Mining Scenario:Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

Millions of dollars

Capital costs:Exploration and pilot plant mining tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3Used dredge (BIMA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Dredge transport and insurance from Indonesia to Nome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Shipyard modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Onshore facilities and infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Auxiliary vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Total capital costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17

Annual operating costs:Fuel and lubricants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.5Personnel and overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0Maintenance and spares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0

Annual operating costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.0SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment, 1987


price of tin) is on the order of $5 million. Also as-sumed is that other capital costs, including ancil-lary facilities onshore; pilot-plant mining tests in1985 and trials in 1986; auxiliary vessels forprospecting and for tending anchors; shipyardmodifications and alterations to the processingplant; and the cost of shipment of the Bima fromIndonesia to Nome and to and from the shipyardnear Seattle will amount to another $10 million to$15 million. Total capital costs are thus assumedto be between $15 million and $20 million.

Annual operating costs for fuel, maintenance, in-surance and administration, and personnel andoverhead are estimated (to an accuracy of 25 per-cent) to be $7 million. At a production rate of48,000 ounces per year, a cash operating cost onthe order of$150 to $175 per ounce is implied. Ata mining rate of approximately 4.5 million cubicyards per year, direct costs would amount to $1.55per cubic yard.

Assuming the price of gold to be $400 per troyounce, the projected pre-tax cash flow on a pro-duction of 48,000 troy ounces per year would beapproximately $12 million (after subtracting oper-ating costs) on an investment of $17 million. Al-though this figure does not include debt service,it nevertheless indicates that the Bima offshore goldmining project at Nome shows good promise ofprofitability if the operators are able to maintainproduction. This scenario illustrates that offshoregold mining is economically viable and technicallyfeasible using a bucketline dredge under the con-ditions assumed.

Offshore Phosphorite Mining Scenarios:Tybee Island, Georgia and Onslow Bay,

North Carolina

Two different phosphorite mining scenarios wereconsidered by OTA. The first, located off TybeeIsland, Georgia, was developed by Zellars-Williams, Inc., in 1979 for the U.S. Geological Sur-vey. The second was developed by OTA in thecourse of this study. Although the two scenarios dif-fer in location and in the assumptions concerningonboard and onshore processing of the phosphoriteminerals, breakeven price estimates of the two casesare well within overlapping margins of error.

Both scenarios should be considered little morethan rough estimates of costs based on hypotheti-cal mining conditions and technology. In somecases—particularly with the OTA scenario—assumptions are made about the adaptability of on-shore flotation and separation techniques to at-seaconditions. Not only would additional technologi-cal development and testing be needed to adapt ex-isting technology for onboard use, but even the fea-sibility of secondary separation and flotationprocessing at sea would also probably need furtherassessment and testing.

The actual costs of capitalizing and operating anoffshore mining operation can vary significantlyfrom OTA’s estimates. However, in both scenarios,the results suggest that further evaluation—par-ticularly to better define the potential resourcesand to consider processing technology-might beworthwhile.

While further assessment of the potential for min-ing phosphorite minerals offshore may be war-ranted, the overall condition of the domestic on-shore phosphate industry cannot be ignored whenevaluating the feasibility of offshore operations. Thefuture of the U.S. phosphate mining industry seemsbleak in the face of increased low-cost foreign pro-duction. Some fully depreciated mines are currentlyfinding it difficult to meet foreign competition. Newphosphate mines, either onshore or offshore, willlikely find it difficult to compete with foreign oper-ations.

If exceptionally rich phosphate resources are dis-covered offshore, or if offshore mining and proc-essing systems can reduce costs through increasedproductivity or offsetting land use and environ-mental costs, the commercial prospects for offshoredevelopment might improve. However, higherphosphate prices would also be needed to make theeconomic picture viable, and most commodityanalysts do not think higher prices are likely. Ta-ble 5-12 compares Tybee Island and Onslow Bayscenarios.

Tybee Island, Georgia

Location. —Onshore and offshore phosphoritedeposits are known to occur from North Carolinato Florida. The potential for offshore mining ofphosphorite in EEZ waters adjacent to the north-

Ch. 5—Mining and At-Sea Processing Technologies . 205

ern coast of Georgia was examined in some detailin a 1979 study by Zellars-Williams, Inc. , for theDepartment of the Interior. To illustrate the tech-nical and economic feasibility of offshore phos-phorite mining, OTA has drawn heavily from Zel-lars-Williams work.

The Zellars-Williams study considers a 30-square-mile area located about 12 miles offshoreTybee Island, Georgia, not far from the SouthCarolina border and in the same general area con-sidered in the titanium scenario (figure 5-17). Onlyscattered, widely spaced samples have been takenin the vicinity, and none within the scenario areaitself. These samples and some seismic data sug-gest the occurrence of a shallow phosphorite depositin the area, but much more sampling is requiredto fully evaluate the deposit. The mine site is at-tractive for several reasons:

●

●

●

●

water depths are uniform over the entire block,with a mean depth of 42 feet;the area is free of shipwrecks, artificial fish-ing reefs, natural reefs, rock, and hard bottom;the area is close to the Savannah Harbor en-trance but not within shipping lanes for traf-fic entering the harbor; andan onshore plant site is available with an ade-quate supply of river water for process use, in-cluding washing of sea salts.

Operational and Geological Characteristics.—Average windspeed during the year at the site isabout 7 miles per hour with peaks each month upto 38 miles per hour. Winter surface winds arechiefly out of the west, while in summer north andeast winds alternate with those from the west. Se-vere tropical storms affect the area about once every10 years and usually occur between June and mid-October. The most severe wave conditions resultfrom strong fall and winter winds from the northand west, but the proposed mining site is shelteredby land from these directions. Waves of 12 feet ormore occur about 2.5 percent of the year while 4-foot waves occur 57 percent of the year. The max-imum spring tidal range is about 8 feet. Currentspeeds are low, about 3 to 4 miles per day. Heavyfog is common along the coast, and Savannah ex-periences an average of 44 foggy days a year.

Phosphorite ore occurring as pebbles and sandat the mine site is part of what is known as the

Savannah Deposit. The site straddles the crest ofthe north-south trending Beaufort Arch, which sug-gests that the top of the phosphatic matrix will beclosest to sea level in this area. The ore body liesbeneath 4 feet of overburden. It is assumed thatthe ore body is of constant thickness over a reason-ably large area and that the mine site contains 150million short tons of phosphorite. The averagegrade of the ore is assumed to be 11.2 percent phos-phorous pentoxide (P2O5).

Mining Technology. —An ocean-going cuttersuction dredge with an onboard beneficiation plantis selected for mining. The dredge is equipped witha 125-foot cutter ladder, enabling it to dredge toa maximum depth of 100 feet below the water sur-face, more than enough to reach all of the mine sitedeposit. The dredge first removes the sandy over-burden in a mine cut and places it away from thecut or in a mined-out area. Phosphate matrix thenis loosened by the rotating cutter, sucked throughthe suction pipe, and brought onboard the dredge.The dredge is designed to mine approximately2,500 cubic yards of phosphate matrix per hour.It is estimated that approximately 450 acres of phos-phate matrix are mined each year. Mining cuts are1 mile long and 800 feet wide.

Processing Technology.—Onboard processingconsists of simple mechanical disaggregation of thematrix followed by size reduction. Oversize mate-rial is screened with trommels and rejected. Under-size material (mainly clays) is removed usingcyclones. The undersize material is flocculated(thickened to a consistency suitable for disposal) andpumped to the sea bottom.

On shore, the sand size material is subjected tofurther washing and sizing. Tailings and clays arereturned to the mine site for placement over theflocculated clays. Phosphate is concentrated to 66percent bone phosphate of lime (BPL) by a con-ventional flotation sequence. The wet flotation con-centrate is then blended and calcined to 68 percentBPL (approximately 30 percent P2O5).

It is assumed that, initially, 2.5 million short tonsper year of phosphate rock are produced. Eventu-ally, the amount produced would increase to theoptimum rate of 3.5 million tons. It is also assumedthat only 4 cubic yards of ore would need to bedredged per ton of final product.


Mining and At-Sea Processing Cycle.—Min-ing is assumed to take place 80 percent of the avail-able time—292 days or about 7,000 hours per year.The beneficiated ore is loaded continually on 5,500 -ton capacity barges for transport to the onshoreprocessing plant. Barge transport is deemed nec-essary for both economic and pollution control rea-sons. A tug picks up one barge at a time, takingit to a mooring point just outside the channel atthe Savannah River entrance. A push boat thentakes a four-barge group about 20 miles upstreamto the processing facility. After the ore is discharged,the barges are reloaded with tailings sand andreturned to the mooring point. The tug then returnsthe barge to the mining area, initially to dischargetailings and then to be taken to the dredge and leftto be filled with feed.

Capital and Operating Costs.—Capital andoperating cost estimates for the Zellars-Williamsscenario (table 5-7) have been updated to reflectchanges in plant, equipment, wages, and other costfactors. The revised figures are expressed in 1986dollars. Capital and operating costs include costsfor dredging and primary concentration, transpor-tation of beneficiated ore to port, onshore process-ing to 66 percent BPL, calcining to 68 percent BPL,contingency, and working capital.

The Zellars-Williams scenario and associatedcosts are regarded as a ‘‘best-case’ situation. 19 In

I gMore information about the Zellars - Williams and other phos -

Table 5-7.—Offshore Phosphorite

1986 dollars, the operating costs to mine and washthe ore and to transport the primary concentrateto an onshore processing plant amount to about$4.60 per short ton. Onshore processing would costabout $10 per short ton, and a depreciation expenseof almost $10 per ton must be added to this figure.Hence, a ‘‘breakeven’ price for calcined concen-trate would be close to $25 per short ton. Calcinedconcentrate, however, is currently selling for only$19 to $25 per short ton, depending on grade andwhether the product is sold domestically or ex-ported. Furthermore, given uncertainties such ascosts for mitigating environmental impacts, theacceptability of at-sea disposal of flocculated clays,and the uncertain effectiveness of both dredging andprocessing technology in the offshore environment,investors would probably require a discounted cashflow return larger than the 16.5 percent return in-dicated in the Zellars-Williams study. The break-even price does not include additional requirementsfor profit and risk,

The largest component of total capital cost andof total operating cost is for onshore processing ofthe primary concentrate to 66 percent BPL, andthe second largest cost component is for calciningto 68 percent BPL. Savings might be possible if anexisting onshore processing plant could be used forflotation and/or calcining or if flotation at sea be-

phoritc studies may be found in the OTA contractor report ‘ ‘OffshorePhosphorite Deposits: Processing and Related Considerations, byWilliam Harvey. November 1986.

Mining, Tybee Island, Georgia:.Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

Millions of dollars

Capital costs:Dredging and primary concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17Transport to port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Processing to 66 percent BPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Calcining to 68 percent BPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Contingency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Working capital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $185(million $/year) ($/ton product)

Operating costs:Dredging and primary concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9 $2.50Transport to port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.10Processing to 66 percent BPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.20Calcining to 68 percent BPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.50Contingency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0.70

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $52 $15.00SOURCE: Zellars-Williams, Inc., “Outer Continental Shelf Hard Minerals Leasing: Phosphates Offshore Georgia and South Caro-

lina,” report prepared for U.S. Geological Survey, May, 1979 Figures updated by OTA contractor, William Harvey


comes technically and economically feasible. Whilethere is no existing facility within a reasonable dis-tance of the Savannah Deposit, phosphorite ore lo-cated off the coast of North Carolina (Onslow Bay)potentially could be processed at the existing on-shore facility near Moorhead City.

The following scenario, developed by OTA, ex-amines the feasibility of mining the Onslow Baydeposits, of using onboard flotation to upgrade theore to 66 percent BPL, and of using the existingfacility at Moorhead City for calcining to 68 per-cent BPL.

Onslow Bay, North Carolina

Location.—A high-grade offshore phosphoriteresource is described by Riggs20 and others on thecontinental shelf adjacent to North Carolina. Theresource is located at the southern end of OnslowBay 20 to 30 miles southeast of Cape Fear (figure5-21). A Federal/State task force was establishedin 1986 to investigate the future of marine miningoffshore North Carolina. The task force has hiredDevelopment Planning & Research Associates tostudy the feasibility of mining Onslow Bay phos-phorite; however, no private companies have ex-pressed an immediate interest in mining offshorephosphorite in this area.

The Miocene Pungo Formation is a major sedi-mentary phosphorite unit underlying the north-central coastal plain of North Carolina. It is minedextensively onshore. The seaward extension of thePungo Formation under Onslow Bay has been stud-ied using seismic profiling and vibracore samplingmethods. The site selected for this scenario is wherethe Frying Pan Phosphate Unit of the Pungo For-mation outcrops offshore in a band 1 to 2½ mileswide and about 18 miles long.

Operational and Geological Characteris-tics.—The site is characterized by open ocean con-ditions consisting of wind waves from the north-east and long period swell. Winds gusting above30 knots occur less than 15 percent of the time. Cur-rents are less than 1 knot and tidal influence is neg-ligible. Hurricanes and associated wave conditionsoccur on an average of 10 days per year.

The phosphorite formation consists of fine,muddy sands covering an area of 45 square miles.Overburden consists of loose, fine, sandy sedimentvarying in thickness from O to 8 feet. Underneath,the phosphorite sand has a thickness between 1 and10 feet. Water depth averages about 80 feet; hence,the total mining depth is not expected to exceed98 feet. The overburden contains an average of 6.3percent P2O5. The phosphorite unit contains be-tween 4.8 and 22.9 percent P205, with an averageof 12.4 percent by weight .21 Laboratory analysisof phosphate concentrates indicates the presence ofno other valuable minerals.

Mining Technology. —A trailing suction dredgewith an onboard beneficiation plant is selected asthe most appropriate technology for the water depthand geological characteristics of the deposit. It isassumed that the phosphorite unit and overburdenare sufficiently unconsolidated to be mined by suc-tion dredging methods without the need for a cut-ter head. Only water jets and passive mechanicalteeth are used. The dredge and plant are housedin a specially designed ship-configured hull. Thevessel is not a self-unloading hopper dredge andhas only a small storage capacity on board. Thebeneficiated ore is discharged onto barges or smallore carriers which are continuously in attendancebehind the mining vessel and which shuttle backand forth to the unloading point near the shoreprocessing plant. Dredging capacity is about 2,000cubic yards per hour; 75 percent dredging efficiencyis assumed. The suction head is kept on the seabedby a suction arm that compensates for the motionof the vessel in ocean swell. The vessel is self-propelled, dredges underway, and is equipped withprecision position-keeping instrumentation.

The above configuration is preferred to hopperdredging because either a very large single hopperdredge or several smaller hopper dredges would beneeded to meet the mining production re-quirements.

Processing Technology.—At-sea processing isassumed to consist of:

● conventional mechanical disintegration andscreening to eliminate oversize material,

“ Ibid.


Figure 5-21.— Offshore Phosphate District, Southeastern North Carolina Continental Shelf

p. H Snyder, M.D. and “Geologic Framework of Phosphate Resources in Bay, North Carolina Continental Shelf, ” Economic Geology, VOI 80, 1985, p, 720.


● cycloning to reduce undersize material (e. g.,clays), and

● flotation to reject silicates.

Rejected material is returned to the sea floor. Theassumption that flotation can be adapted to ship-board operation requires verification by develop-ment and testing studies, the costs of which are pro-vided for under the capital cost estimates below.The use of an existing (and, therefore, alreadycapitalized) onshore calcining plant near MoorheadCity, North Carolina, some 80 miles north of themine site, is also assumed.

Assuming that P2O5 makes up 12.4 percent (byweight) of the Frying Pan unit and 6.3 percent ofthe overburden (both of which are mined), themined feed to the at-sea processing plant contains11.2 percent P2O5 by weight. A total of 6.9 mil-lion short tons of ore are mined each year at thedredging rate of 2,000 cubic yards per hour, yield-ing a shipboard concentrate of about 1.7 milliontons for feed to the calcining plant onshore. Thisyield assumes that shipboard ore flotation upgradesthe P2O5 content to 30 percent.

Mining and At-Sea Processing Cycle.—It isestimated that six barges, each with a capacity tocarry 6,550 cubic yards of beneficiated ore, and two

tugs will be required to conduct efficient and nearlycontinuous loading while the mining vessel is onstation. The time required to load three barges,transit to shore, unload, and return to the miningvessel is expected to be 3 days. The mining vesselis assumed to operate 82 percent of the time, or300 days per year.

Capital and Operating Costs.—The capital andoperating cost estimates (table 5-8) are based onthe assumption that new equipment is provided tosupply beneficiated ore to an existing shore-basedcalcining plant. The capital costs of this shore-basedplant are not included in the following estimatesthat may vary by as much as a factor of 2 or more.

Estimated annual operating costs are $20 pershort ton. The estimated costs do not include cap-ital recovery or the profit and risk components thatwould be required to attract commercial investorsto an untried venture. Capital recovery alone over20 years for a $71 million loan at a 9 percent in-terest rate would add an additional $8 per short tonof product, The current market price of compara-ble phosphate rock is about $21 per short ton.Hence, the potential for mining phosphorite inOnslow Bay would not be immediately attractiveto commercial investors.

Table 5-8.—Offshore Phosphorite Mining, Onslow Bay, North Carolina:Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

Millions of dollars

Capital costs:Detailed exploration, metallurgical testing and feasibility studies . . . . . . . $ 4Mining and beneficiation vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Transportation to shore (tugs and barges with capacity to deliver 20,000

cubic yards every 3 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Loading, unloading, and storage installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Total capital costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $71

(million $/year) ($/ton product)Operating costs:Mining $ 9 $ 5.00Processing to 66°A bone phosphate of lime

(BPL) offshore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.00Transport and handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.00Calcining to 68 percent BPL (31 percent phosphorous

pentoxide) onshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.00Total operating costs $34 $20.00

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987


Table 5-9.—Scenario Comparisons: East Coast Placer

Bureau of Mines (January 1987) OTA

Deposit kind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ilmenite, rutile, zircon, etc. in old shorelines

Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approx. 5% economic heavy minerals byweight

Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .100 million short tons

Distance to shore unloadingpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 nautical miles

Maximum dredging depth .. ..150 feet

Annual mining capacity—tonnage dredged. . . . . . . . ..2.5 to 5.0 million short tons

Mining system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domestic built new hopper dredge with anonboard new beneficiation plant

Mining system operatingd a y s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 0

Shore processing plant . . . . . . New, to produce saleable heavy mineralproducts

Capital costs (million $):Dredge . .................25.9 to 49.7Plant and other . ..........16.3 to 24.5Tota l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.2 to 74.2

Direct cash operatingcosts $U.S. per short tondredged . . . . . . . . . . . . .....4.55 to 3.79

Comments (OTA’s) ● Technically feasible but economicallymarginal for heavy mineral gradesassumed

● No estimate of accuracy of scenario● Costs most sensitive to distance from

shore

Ilmenite, rutile, zircon, etc. in old shorelines

5 to 15% total heavy minerals (economic %heavy mineral not specified)

Not specified

100 nautical miles

120 feet

3.2 to 9.5 million short tons

Domestic built new hopper dredge withan onboard beneficiation plant

300New, to produce saleable heavy mineral

products

55 to 86

4.72 to 2.2

Q Accuracy of scenario not estimated● Costs most sensitive to heavy mineral

gradeSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.


Table 5-10.—Scenario Comparisons: West Coast Placer


Deposit kind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chromite with minor titanium, zircon, andgold

Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >6% Cr2O 3 + .0048 oz. Au per short ton


Distance to shore unloadingpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 nautical miles


Annual mining capacity—tonnage dredged. . ........5,000,000 short tons

Mining system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domestic built new hopper dredge

Mining system operatingdays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..250

Shore processing plant . . . . . . New, to produce saleable mineral products

Capital costs (million $):D r e d g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 . 4Plant and other . ..........44.3Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.7

Direct cash operatingcosts $U.S. per short tondredged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.42

Comments (OTA’s) ● Technically feasible but economicallymarginal for heavy mineral grades andprices assumed

● No operating experience● No estimate of accuracy

Chromite with insignificant amounts ofilmenite, rutile, and gold

6°/0 Cr2O3

Not specified

75 nautical miles

300 feet

4,500,000 short tons

Domestic built new hopper dredge

300

New, to produce saleable mineral products

40.017.057,0

4.00● Technically feasible but economically

marginal for heavy mineral grades andprices assumed

Ž No operating experience• No estimate of accuracy

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987

Table 5-11 .-Scenario Comparisons: Nome, Alaska Gold Placer


Deposit kind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gold Placer

Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.6 gram per yard3

Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35,000,000 yard3

Distance to shore unloadingpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 .5 to 5 mi les


Annual mining capacity—tonnage dredged. . ........1,632,000 yd3

Mining system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Used seagoing bucket line dredge with fullgravity processing

Mining system operatingdays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Shore processing plant . . . . . . Minimal for final cleaning of goldconcentrates

Capital costs (million $)Dredge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Plant and other . . . . . . . . . . .Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.1

Direct cash operating costs$U.S. per yard3 mined .. ...2.00

Comments (OTA’s) ● Technically feasible and appearseconomically profitable

Gold Placer

0.35 to 0.45 gram per yard3

80,000,000 yard3

0.5 to 10 miles

90 feet

4,500,000 yd3

Used seagoing bucket line dredge with fullgravity processing

150

Minimal for final cleaning of goldconcentrates

510-1515-20

1.55

. Technically feasible and appearseconomically profitable

SOURCE” Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987


Table 5-12.—Scenario Comparisons: Onslow Bay and Tybee Island Phosphorite

Zellars-Williams (Tybee Island) (updated 1986) OTA (Onslow Bay)

Deposit kind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pebbles and sand

Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.1 percent P205


Distance to shore unloadingpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......30 miles


Annual mining capacity—tonnage dredged. . . . . . . . ..2.5-3.5 million short tons

Mining system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ocean-going cutter suction dredge withonboard screening and cycloning

Mining system operatingdays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 days

Shore processing plant . . . . . . Washing and sizing, flotation, calcining

Capital costs (million $)Dredge & offshore

processing ... ... ... ... .$ 17Transportation to shore . . . . 26Onshore processing . . . . . . . 113Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Total ... ... ... ... ... ... ..$185

Cash operating costs $U.S.per short ton ... ... ... ... .$ 25

Comments (OTA’s) ● Cash operating cost is break-even; Doesnot include profit and risk.

● Estimate considered “bestcase. ”

● Estimate may be off byfactor of two or more.

Sands

11.2 percent P2O5

Not specified

80 miles

98 feet

6.9 million short tons

Trailing suction hopper dredge; onboardscreening, sizing, and flotation

300 days

Calcining only

$

$

$●

●

●

4116—1471

28

Cash operating cost is break-even; Doesnot include profit and risk.Does not include capital costs of existingonshore calcining plant.Estimate may be off by factor of twoor more


Chapter 6

Environmental Considerations

CONTENTS

PageIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........215Similar Effects in Shallow and Deep Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...222

Surface Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................222Water Column Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................222Benthic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................223Alteration of Wave Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......224Seasonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................224

Different Effects in Shallow and Deep Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..226Surface Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................,.226Water Column Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................226Benthic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................,,226

Shallow Water Mining Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........,.227Deep Water Mining Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............236

DOMES: The Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study . . . . . . . . . . . ......,.236Follow-Up to DOMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................239Environmental Effects From Mining Cobalt Crusts . . . . . . . . . . ...............240Gorda Ridge Task Force Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..244

BoxesBox Page6-A. ICES—International Council for Exploration of the Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . ......2286-B. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....,,..2296-C. Project NOMES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................2306-D. New York Sea Grant Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2316-E. EPA/COE Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material . ......................2326-F. Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES) . .................,.2376-G. Cobalt Crust Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............2436-H. Gorda Ridge Study Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........245

FiguresFigure No. Page6-1. The Vertical Distribution of Life in the Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . .................2166-2. Impacts of Offshore Mining on the Marine Environment . ..............,.2176-3. Spawning Areas for Selected Benthic Invertebrates and Demersal Fishes. ....2206-4. Composite of Areas of Abundance for Selected Invertebrates Superimposed

With Known Areas of High Mineral Potential. . .......................,.2216-5. The Effect of Discharge Angle and Water Current on the Shape and Depth

of Redeposited Sediments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . .2356-6. Silt Curtain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..,236

TablesTable No. Page6-1. Environmental Perturbations from Various Mining Systems . ...,...,......2346-2. Summary of Environmental Concerns and Potential Significant Impacts of

Deep-Sea Mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................238

Chapter 6

Environmental Considerations

INTRODUCTION

Mineral deposits are found in many differentenvironments ranging from shallow water (sand,gravel, phosphorites, and placers) to deep water (co-balt crusts, polymetallic sulfides, and manganesenodules). These environments include both themost biologically productive areas of the coastalocean as well as the almost desert-like conditionsof the abyssal plains. (See figure 6-1. )

Given this broad spectrum, it is hard to gener-alize about the effects of offshore mining on the ma-rine environment. However, a few generic princi-ples can be stated. 1 As long as areas of importancefor fish spawning and nursery grounds are avoided,surface and mid-water effects from either shallowor deep water offshore mining should be minimaland transient. Benthic effects (i. e., those at theseafloor) will be the most pronounced for any min-ing activity in either shallow or deep water. Ani-mals within the path of the mining equipment willbe destroyed; those nearby may be smothered bythe ‘‘rain of sediment’ returning to the seafloor.Mining equipment can be designed to minimizethese effects. Barring very extensive mining sitesthat may eliminate entire populations of benthicorganisms or cause extinctions of rare animals, neg-ative impacts to the seafloor are reversible. Mostscientists believe that shallow water communitieswould recover rapidly from disturbance but thatrecolonization of deep sea areas would be very slow.

Because little offshore mining is going on now,the degree of environmental disturbance that anyparticular commercial operation might create is dif-ficult to characterize. Even areas that are dredgedfrequently do not have the same level of disturbanceas a continuous mining operation. Nevertheless,U.S. dredging experience is a useful gauge of thepotential for environmental impacts. In shallownearshore waters, a few sand, gravel, and shell min-ing operations in the United States and Europe in-

dicate possible impacts. In addition, results of re-search in the United States and abroad offer insightson the effects of offshore mining. These researchefforts include:

●

●

●

●

●

The

the International Council for Exploration ofthe Sea (ICES) Report of the Working Groupon Effects on Fisheries of Marine Sand andGravel Extraction—box 6-A,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredge Ma-terial Research Program (DMRP)—box 6-B,the New England Offshore Mining Environ-mental Study (NOMES)—box 6-C,Sea Grant Studies of Sand and Gravel in NewYork Harbor—box 6-D, andNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration’s (NOAA) Deep Ocean Mining Envi-ronmental Study (DOMES)—box 6-F.

Gorda Ridge Draft Environmental ImpactStatement, and the Cobalt Crust Draft Environ-mental Impact Statement (see box 6-G) summarizerelated research as well.

Similarities among the mining systems used fordeep water (2,500- 16,000 feet) and shallow water(less than 300 feet) suggest that the same generaltypes of impacts will occur in both environments.Any mining operation will alter the shape of theseafloor during the excavation process, destroyorganisms directly in the path of operations, andproduce a sediment plume over the seafloor fromthe operation of the equipment. When the minedmaterial is sorted and separated at the ship, somepercentage will be discarded—very little in the caseof sand and gravel, a great deal for many otherseabed minerals—resulting in a surface ‘‘plume’that will slowly settle to the bottom (see figure 6-2). The duration and severity of plume effects onthe surface and water column depend on the grain-size of the rejected material. Sand (i. e., particle sizes0.06 mm-1.0 mm. ) settles quickly; silts (.001-.06

‘These conclusions are for mining alone. If any at-sea processingoccurs, with subsequent chemical dumping, guidelines may be totallydifferent

‘These sediment plumes are the cqu ivalent of the dust cloudsproduced by similar operations on land.

215

216 ●

Marine

Minerals:

Exploring

Our

New

O

cean F

rontier

Figure 6·1.-The Vertical Distribution of Life In the Sea

SHELF ZONE

", 7"", ~ Jellyfish

~""k"" ~~f ~ ~in I' 1, /" ... ~ ____ _ ~ • .;;;, ~ "---r7- ".......

Dolphjn~ Bonito __ "'-

SOURCE: Modified from The Rand McNally Atlas 01 the Oceans, New York, 1977.

Ch. 6—Environmental Considerations . 217

Figure 6-2.—impacts of Offshore Mining on the Marine Environment

1

■ ✎ .

. .

‘ . . . . . . - . , . , . . ., . . . . . . . . . .


72-672 0 - 87 -- 8


mm. ) and clays (finer than .06 mm. ) remain in thewater column for a much longer time.

It is not scientifically or economically possible todevelop very detailed baseline information on theecology of all offshore environments in the near fu-ture; the consequences of a variety of mining sce-narios cannot be precisely predicted. However, pre-sumably environmental impact statements (EIS)will be prepared to identify site-specific problemsprior to the commencement of mining operations.Environmental impacts should also be monitoredduring an actual mining operation. Areas whereoffshore mining is most likely to pose an environ-mental risk can be identified now or in the nearfuture using existing data. (e. g., see figure 6-4showing areas of high biological productivity su-perimposed on a map, produced by the StrategicAssessment Branch of NOAA, depicting areas ofhigh mining potential. ) For shallow water environ-ments, areas considered sensitive because of uniqueplant or animal species, spawning or nursery areas,migration pathways, fragile coastline, etc., shouldbe prohibited from mining activities (see figure 6-3); this approach is being pursued in the UnitedKingdom and Canada and is one of the prime rec-ommendations of the International Council for Ex-ploration of the Seas (ICES) Working Group.

Analogues in natural environments that simu-late disturbances on the scale of a mining effortshould be investigated. For example, insight intothe response of the deep-sea to a mining operationcan be gained from studying deep-sea areas exposedto natural periodic perturbations such as theHEBBLE3 (High Energy Benthic Boundary LayerExperiment) area.

In addition, when mining does proceed in eithershallow or deep water, at least two reference areasshould be maintained for sampling during the oper-ation: one sufficiently removed from the impactarea to serve as a control, and one adjacent to themining area.

3D. Thistle 1981, ‘‘Natural Physical Disturbances and Communi-ties of Marine Soft Bottoms, ” Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 6: 223-228, andB. Hecker, “Possible Benthic Fauna and Slope Instability Relation-ships, ” Marine Slides and Other Mass Movements, S. Saxov andJ. K. Nieuwenhuis (eds. ), Plenum Publishing Corp., 1982.

Shallow water effects are better understood thandeep water effects because nearshore areas havebeen studied in detail for a longer time. A greatdeal is known about the environment and plant andanimal communities in shallow water areas. Butthere has been no commercial mining and muchless is known about ecology in deep-sea areas wheremanganese-cobalt crusts, manganese nodules, andpolymetallic sulfides occur. However, there appearsto be remarkable uniformity in the mechanisms thatcontrol deep-sea environments, so that informationgleaned from one area in the deep-sea can be usedto make predictions about others; shallow waterenvironments on the other hand, differ significantlyfrom site to site.

One area of shallow water research that requiresattention is coastline alteration. Sand, gravel, andplacer mining in nearshore areas may aggravateshore erosion by altering waves and tides. A site-specific study would have to be done for each shal-low water mining operation to ensure wave climatesare not changed. New theories about wave actionsuggest that, contrary to previous scientific opin-ion, water depth may be a poor indicator of subse-quent erosion. The relative importance of differ-ent kinds of seafloor alterations on coastlineevolution needs to be clarified. For example, whatis the effect of a one-time, very large-scale sedimentremoval (e. g., at Grand Isle, Louisiana, for beachreplenishment over a several mile area) versuscumulative scraping of a small amount over a verylong period (such as decades).

The information most needed to advance under-standing of the deep-sea is even more basic. Theresearch community needs more and better sub-mersibles to adequately study the deepsea benthos.Currently, there is a 2-year time-lag between re-search grant approval and available time on oneof the two U.S.-owned deepsea submersibles avail-able to the scientific community. Deep-sea biotaneed to be identified and scientifically classified. Upto 80 percent of the animals obtained from the fewsamples recovered have never been seen before.4

It will be impossible to monitor change in animalcommunities without systematic survey of thesepopulations. Research funding is needed to develop

‘B. Hecker, Lament-Doherty Geological Observato~, OTA Work-shop on Environmental Concerns, Washington, D. C., Oct. 29, 1986,

the taxonomy of deepsea creatures. Improvementsin navigational capabilities are needed; in order toconduct ‘ ‘before and after’ studies, it is importantto return to the exact area sampled.

A compendium of available studies and the dataproduced on both shallow and deep water environ-ments is sorely needed. Unfortunately, a great dealof research on environmental impacts to offshoreareas, performed for particular agencies and insti-tutions, has never appeared in peer-reviewed liter-ature. These studies may be quite useful in de-scribing both the unaltered and altered offshoreenvironment and may be directly applicable to pro-posed mining scenarios. An annotated bibliogra-phy summarizing all the information that went intothe compilations of MMS Task Forces (see boxes

6-G and 6-H), DMRP, DOMES —see box 6-F,NOMES—see box 6-C, and Information from theOffshore Environmental Studies Program of theDepartment of Interior developed in conjunctionwith developing EISS for Oil and Gas PlanningAreas would be invaluable. The combined researchbudgets represented by these efforts is hundreds ofmillions of dollars. Such data collection could notbe duplicated by the private and academic sectorsin this century. New research efforts—which tendto be quite modest in comparison—would benefitfrom easy access to this wealth of information.

An important effort to collect available biologi-cal and chemical data and screen them for qualitycontrol is underway in the Strategic AssessmentBranch of NOAA. Since 1979, NOAA has been


Figure 6-3.—Spawning Areas (June-September) for Selected Benthic invertebrates and Demersal Fishes

Number of species

This computer-generated map of the Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort Seas area of Alaska shows how information about various speciescan be combined to develop pictures of offshore areas (in this case, spawning areas) where mining activities may be detrimental.

SOURCE: Strategic Assessment Branch, NOAA,

Small crangonid shrimps (Crangon communis, C. dalli,C. septemspinosa)

Northern Pink Shrimp (Panda/us borealis)Sidestripe Shrimp (Pandalopsis dispar)Humpy Shrimp (Pandalus goniuris)Pandalid shrimp (Pandalus tridens)Opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta)Korean Hair Crab (Erimacrus isenbeckii)Red King Crab (Paralithodes camtschatica)Golden King Crab (Lithodes aequispina)Blue King Crab (Paralithodes platypus)Bairdi Tanner Crab (Chionoecetes bairdi)

Pacific Cod (Gadus macrocephalus)Walleye Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma)Yellowfin Sole (Limanda aspera)Alaska Plaice (Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus)Greenland Turbot (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides)Rock Sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata)Arrowtooth Flounder (Atheresthes stomias)Flathead Sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon)Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis)

Ch. 6—Environmental Considerations . 221

Figure 6-4.–Composite of Areas of Abundance for Selected Invertebrates Superimposed WithKnown Areas of High Mineral Potential

Known Potent ial

23

Composite of Areas of Abundance for Selected Benthic Invertebrates

Number of Species

■ -1; ❑ - 2,3; ● -4,5; ■ -6,7,8

NOTES: Map constructed by areas of abundance (i.e., major adult areas and major adult concentrations) frOm maps of species indicated Boundaries havebeen smoothed Areas depict the number of Individual species with high abundance; they do not necessarily reflect the distribution of total biomass

Species included: Small Crangonid Shrimp (Crangon communis, C. dalli), Large crangonid shrimp (Argis dentata, Sclerocrangonboreas), Northern Pink Shrimp, Korean Hair Crab, Red King Crab, Golden King Crab, Blue King Crab, Bairdi Tanner Crab, OpilioTanner Crab, Chalky Macoma, Greenland Cockle, Iceland Cockle.

SOURCE: Strategic Assessment Branch, NOAA

compiling databases on coastal areas and the Ex- used to identify potential conflicts among the mul-clusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (see Ch. 7 for more tiple uses of resources with given offshore areas (seeinformation on this program). These data are be- figures 6-3 and 6-4).ing used to develop a series of atlases and can be


SIMILAR EFFECTS IN SHALLOW AND DEEP WATER

Surface Effects might lead to changes in productivity or changes

The surface plume created by the rejection orin species composition.

loss of some of the mined material or the disposalof unused material could cause a number of effectson the phytoplankton (minute plant life) commu-nity and on primary production.5 In the short term,reduction of available light in and beneath theplume may decrease photosynthesis. Nutrientsoriginally contained in the bottom sediments butintroduced to the surface waters may stimulatephytoplankton productivity. Long-term plume ef-fects from long-term continual mining operations

5A. T. Chan and G. C. Anderson, “Environmental Investigationof the Effects of Deep-Sea Mining on Marine and Pri-mary Productivity in the Tropical Eastern North Pacific Ocean, Ma-rine Mining, vol 3. ( 1981), No. 1/2, pp. 121-150.

Water Column Effects

High particulate concentrations in the watercolumn can adversely affect the physiology of bothswimming and stationary animals,6 altering theirgrowth rate and reproductive success. Such stressesmay lead to a decrease in the number of species,7

a decrease in biomass (weight/unit area), and/or

‘D. C. Rhoads, and D. K. Young, “The Influence on Sediment Sta-bility and Community Structure, ” of Marine Re-search, No. 28 (1970), pp. 150-178.

7R. W. Grigg and “Some Ecological Effects of Dis-charged Wastes on Marine Life, California Fish and Game, No.56 (1970), 145-155.


A surface plume of turbidity is produced when a dredge discharges material overboard. The extent, duration, and negativeimpacts of such a plume depend on the size and composition of the rejected material. Larger particles will settle out

quickly and the plume will rapidly disperse. Very fine sediments may remain suspended for several days.

Ch. 6—Environmental Considerations ● 223

changes in seasonal and spatial patterns of organ-isms.8 Eggs and larvae in the mining area will beunable to escape. Most adult fish-the prime com-mercial species in the water column—are activeswimmers and would be able to avoid the area ofhigh particulate concentrations. Nonetheless, alarge-scale, long-term mining operation will pro-duce a ‘ ‘curtain’ of turbidity (cloudiness due toparticulate) in the water column which might in-terfere with normal spawning habits, alter migra-tion patterns, or cause fish to avoid the mining areaaltogether.

Heavy metals, e.g., copper, zinc, manganese,cadmium, and iron, may be released into the watercolumn in biologically significant forms from somemining operations. The quantities of dissolved me-tals generally will be quite low, but current hypoth-eses suggest that small spatial and temporal differ-ences in metal concentrations regulate the kinds ofplankton found9 10. Metals could, therefore, causechanges in species composition; such changes havebeen verified for copper both in the laboratoryll

and at sea. 12 Trace metals may be as important asmacronutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and silicon)in controlling species composition and productivityin the marine environment, If so, then any large-scale disruptions in the natural metal balance dueto mining activities could alter marine food webs.However, our understanding of the role of metalsin unpolluted marine environments is currentlyconstrained by the difficulty of measuring such min-ute quantities.

———‘A. Shar and H.F. Mulligan, “Simulated Seasonal Mining Impacts

on Plankton, International Revue Gesamte Hydrobiologie, 62(4)1977, pp. 505-510.

9S. A. Huntsman and W. G. Sunda, ‘‘The Role of Trace Metalsin Regulating Phytoplankton Growth with Emphasis on Fe, Mn, andCu, “ The Physiologiczd Ecology of Phytoplankton, 1. Morris (cd. )(Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1981), pp. 285-328.

I°F, A. Cross and W.G. Sunda, “The Relationship Between Chem-ical Speciation and Bioavailability of Trace Metals to MarineOrganisms—A Review, Proceedings of the International Sympo-sium on Utilization of Coastal Ecosystems: Planning, Pollution, andProductivity, Nov. 21-27, 1982 (Rio Grande, Brazil: 1985).

I I w H, Thomas and D, L. R. Siebert, ‘‘Effect of copper on theDominance and the Diversity of Algae: Controlled Ecosystem Pollu-tion Experiment, Bul/etin of Ibfarine Science, No. 27 (1977), pp.23-33.

IZW, G, Sunda, R .T. Barber, and S. A. Huntsman, ‘‘ Phytoplank -

ton Growth in Nutrient-Rich Seawater: Importance of Copper-Manganese Cellular Interactions, “Journal of Marine Research, No.39 (1981), Pp. 567-586.

Benthic Impacts

Little is known about the dynamics of animalcommunities on the seafloor. There are, however,several possible effects of concern. Animals withinthe mined area will be destroyed. Large-scaleremoval of bottom sediments will alter the topog-raphy and therefore could affect currents and sub-strate characteristics, which in turn affect speciescomposition. 13 Benthic plumes from mining deviceswill cause sedimentation on the bottom-dwellingorganisms and eggs in the vicinity. Surface plumesfrom rejection of some of the mined material willeventually settle over a much wider area and coveranimals with a thin layer of sediment. Silt depos-its can smother benthic organisms and inhibitgrowth and development of juvenile stages. 14-19

While the first new colonizing organisms in a minedarea probably will be those with the highest disper-sal, the direction of succession and final composi-tion of the community is difficult to predict and islikely to be affected by grain size and suitability ofthe deposited sediment for colonization by benthicinvertebrates.

The areas affected by mining will tend to besmaller than those affected by commercial fishing(especially bottom-trawling operations), which alsoremoves large numbers of organisms and may dis-turb large sections of the seafloor. However, ma-rine mining impacts may be more intense thanthose of fisheries.

13J .S. Gray, “Animal-Sediment Relationships, in Oceanograph,vand Marine Biology-An Annuaf Review, H. Barnes (ed. ), No. 12(1974), pp. 223-262.

‘+W. B. Wilson, “The Effects of Sedimentation Due to DredgingOperations on Oysters in Copano Bay, Texas’ (MS. thesis, TexasA&M University, 1956).

15R. S. Scheltema, “Metamorphosis of the Veliger Larvae of Nas-sarius Obsoletus (Gastropod) in Response to Bottom Sediment, Bio-logical Bulletin, No. 120 (1961), pp. 92-109.

16G. Thorson, “Some Factors Influencing the Recruitment andEstablishment of Marine Benthic Communities, NetherlandsJour-nal of Sea Research, No. 3 ( 1966), pp. 267-293.

17Grigg and Kiwala, ‘ ‘Some Ecological Effects of Discharged Wasteson Marine Life.

I as, B, Sai]a, S, D. Pratt, and T.T. Polgar, Dredge Spoil ~ispos~

in Rhode Island Sound, University of Rhode Island Marine Techni-cal Report No. 2, 1972.

19P, S, Meadows and J. 1. Campbell, ‘‘ Habitat Selection by AquaticInvertebrates, Advances in Marine Biology, No. 10 (1972), pp.271-382.


Photo credit” A Crosby Longwell, National Marine Fisheries Service

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers suggests thatconcern with water depth alone may not be suffi-cient to avoid beach erosion21 22 and that detailedon-site modeling should be considered in pre-plan-ning analysis. For example, the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers of the New Orleans District built abeach and dune on Grand Isle, Louisiana for ero-sion control in 1983. The project required 2.8 mil-lion cubic yards of sand obtained by digging twolarge borrow holes one-half mile offshore (abouttwice this amount was actually dredged to achievethe design section). Shortly after completion, cus-pate sand bars began to form on the leeward sideof the dredged holes and the beach began to erodeadjacent to the newly formed bars. During the win-ter and spring of 1985, heavy storms exacerbatedthe areas of beach loss adjacent to the cuspate bars(e.g., see opposite page) .23 This unexpected re-sponse of beach formation and erosion as a resultof altered wave patterns around the borrow areasillustrates the importance of site-specific assessmentbefore mining large volumes of sediment from theseafloor.

Atlantic mackerel eggs sorted out of plankton fromsurface waters of the New York Bight.

Seasonal

Alteration of Wave Patterns

Mining in shallow water may change the formand physiography of the seafloor. Wave patternsmay be altered as a result of removing offshore barsor shoals or digging deep pits. When changes inwave patterns and wave forces affect the shoreline,coastal beaches can erode and structures can bedamaged. The best example of these dangers oc-curred in the United Kingdom in the early 1900swhen the town of Hallsands in Devon was severelydamaged by wave action following large scaleremoval of offshore sandbars to build the Plymouthbreakwater (see photograph). Coastal erosion isnow the first consideration in the United Kingdombefore mining takes place; dredging is limited toareas deeper than 60 feet. This criterion is basedon studies that imply sediment transport is unlikelyat depths greater than 45 feet; the additional 15 feetwere added as an extra precaution .20 Current work

ZIJR, w, Drlnnan and D.C, Bliss, The U.K. Experience on the Ef-fects of Offshore Sand and Grave] Extraction on Coastal Erosion andthe Fishing Industry j Nova Scotia Department of Mines and Energy,Open File Report 86-054.

During certain times of the year, e.g., when eggsand larvae are abundant, the effects of offshore min-ing may have a more negative impact on the oceancommunity than at other times. Juvenile stages offish and shellfish are transported by water currentsand therefore are less able to actively avoid adverseconditions. They are generally more susceptible tohigh concentrations of suspended sediments thanswimming organisms that can avoid such conditions.For example, striped bass larvae in the ChesapeakeBay develop more slowly when particulate levelsare high. 24 Therefore, restricting offshore mining

J21 ~an pope, u, S. Army Corps of Engineers T OTA Workshop onEnvironmental Concerns, Washington, D. C., Oct. 29, 1986.

22R.J. Hallermeier, A Profile Zonation for Seasonal Sand Beachesfrom Wave Climate, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Reprint 81-3(Fort Belvoir, VA: Coastal Engineering Research Center, April 1981).

23A.J. Combe and C. W. Soileau, “Behavior of Man-made Beachand Dune, Grand Isle, Louisiana, ” Coasrzd Sediment ’87, 1987, p.1232.

z4.4, H, Au]d and J. R. Schubel, ‘‘ Effects of Suspended Sedimenton Fish Eggs and Larvae: A Laboratory Assessment, Estuarine andCoastal Marine Science, No. 6 (1978), pp. 153-164.


Photo credit’ Jay US. Army Corps of Engineer

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the New Orleans District built a beach and dune on Grand Isle, Louisiana for beacherosion control, recreation, and hurricane wave damage protection (Aug. 14, 1984).

The two offshore borrow areas from which the sand was obtained, were of sufficient width, depth, and proximity to theshore to modify wave climate. Over the next 3 years, cuspate sand bars formed in the lee of the borrow pits while erosion

occurred adjacent to these bars (Aug. 9, 1985).

s

A series of hurricanes between 1984-85 severely eroded areas immediately adjacent to and between the cuspate barsdestroying total beach and dune fill over one-seventh of the project length (Oct. 28, 1985). Plans to restore and modify

the project to improve its resistance to damage in future hurricanes are essentially complete.


seasonally as environmental concerns warrant may marine species dependent on a particular substrateprotect biota during sensitive stages of devel- type (e. g., salmon and herring).25

opment.

Permanently changing the topography of the25S,J. de Groot, “The Potential Environmental Impact of Marine

Gravel Extraction in the North Sea, ” Ocean Management, No. 5seafloor may disrupt the spawning patterns of some (1979), pp. 233-249.

DIFFERENT EFFECTS IN SHALLOW AND DEEP WATER

While the potential environmental impacts ofmining operations in shallow water are similar tothose in deep water, the effects may be more obvi-ous in shallow areas and may have a more directeffect on human activities. Many of the organismson the continental shelf and in coastal waters arelinked to humans through the food chain; decreasedanimal productivity may have an adverse economiceffect as well as an undesirable environmental ef-fect in these nearshore areas (see figure 6-2).

Surface Effects

Surface plumes are of more concern in nearshoreshallow water areas than they are in deeper areas.In the open ocean, plankton productivity is lowerand populations extend over huge geographicscales. The effects of a localized mining operationon the surface biota, therefore, will be less in theoffshore situation. Visual and aesthetic effects frommining operations and waste plumes also will beless apparent far offshore.

Water Column Effects

High metal concentrations can reduce the rateof primary production by phytoplankton and canalter species composition and succession ofphytoplankton communities26 Several factors actsimultaneously to reduce the likelihood of adverseeffects from metals released during mining opera-tions in shallow water. Water over the continentalshelf contains higher concentrations of particulatematter (and organic chelating agents) which con-vert the dissolved (ionic) metals into insoluble formsthat are unavailable to plankton27 While no studieshave yet identified metal contamination of the watercolumn to be a serious consequence of seabed min-

26Thomas and Siebert, ‘‘Effect of Copper. ‘‘27 Huntsman and Sunda, “The Role of Trace Metals. ”

ing, the potential for metal persistence is greaterin the deep-sea.

Benthic Effects

Coastal waters are subject to continual wave ac-tion and seasonal changes, and the species foundhere are adapted to such conditions. The fine par-ticulates stirred by mining operations may be sim-ilar to sediment resuspended by strong wave actionin shallow water. In coastal areas, surface-livingforms have been found to tolerate 2 inches of sedi-ment deposition, sediment-dwelling animals (infauna)10 to 12 inches, and deeper burrowing bivalves 4to 20 inches. 28 On the other hand, animals accus-tomed to the relatively quiescent deep ocean envi-ronment may be less resilient to disruption of theirhabitat or blanketing by particulates. Since deep-sea animals live in an environment where naturalsedimentation rates are on the order of millimetersper thousand years, they are assumed to have onlyvery limited burrowing abilities. Thus, even a thinlayer of sediment may kill these organisms. *g Ingeneral, if the resident fauna on an area of the shal-low seafloor are buried, the community will gen-erally recover more quickly than in the deep-sea.

Populations of animals directly within the min-ing path will be destroyed. Dredged areas in shal-low seafloor are buried, the community will recovermore quickly than in the deep-sea.

Zsconsoljdated Gold Fields Australia Ltd. and ARC Marine Ltd.,Marine Aggregate Project, Environmental Impact Statement, vol. 1,February 1980.

zgP. A. Jumars and E.D. Gallagher, ‘‘Deep-Sea Community Struc-ture: Three Plays on the Benthic Proscenium, The Environmentof the Deep Sea, Rubey Volume 11, W.G. Ernst and J.G. Morin (eds. )(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1982); and P.A, Jumars, “Limits in Predict-ing and Detecting Benthic Community Responses to Manganese Nod-ule Mining, ” Marine Mining, vol 3. (1981), No. 1/2, pp. 213-229.

CH. 6—Environmental Considerations . 227

Photo credit: Paul Rodhouse, British Antarctic Survey

Mussels, like many benthic marine organisms, filtertheir food. Sediments discharged from dredgingvessels or stirred up by mining activities may clogfeeding and respiratory surfaces of these animals or

completely bury populations.

cies. 30 31 An ima l popu la t i ons in f ine -gra ined sed i -ments appear to recover more rapidly than those incoarse-grained sediments, which may require up to3 years for recovery. 3 2 R e c o l o n i z a t i o n r a t e s i n t h edeep sea are not known with any certainty, but theyappear to be long—on the order of years—in areasnot subject to periodic disturbance. 33-36 Deep-seabenthic communities are areas of high species diver-sity, few individuals, slow recolonization rates, and

questionable resilience. Shallow water benthic com-munities may have either high or low diversity, usu-ally with large numbers of individuals, fast recoloni-zation, and resilience to physical disturbance.

T Derailed . .Technical Report prepared for Army Corps of Engineers Of-fice, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C., December 1978.

3*D. Thistle, “Natural Physical Disturbances and Communities ofMarine Soft Bottoms, Marine Program No. 6(1981), 223-228.

32 Saucier et al., p. 75. et a]. , of Deep Sea Dredging,

Report to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, No-vember 1986.

34C. R. Smith, ‘ ‘Food for the Deep Sea: Utilization, Dispersal, andFlux of Nekton Falls at the Santa Catalina Basin Floor, ” Deep-SeaResearch, vol. 32, No.

F, ‘ ‘Slow Recolonization of Deep-Sea Sediment, Na-ture, No. 265 ( 1977), pp. 618-619.

“J. F. “Diversity and Population Dynamics of Organisms, No. 21 (1978), pp. 42-45.

SHALLOW WATER MINING EXPERIENCE

Since little mining has taken place offshore of theUnited States37, any discussion of the environ-mental impacts must rely heavily on the Europeanexperience. This experience is summarized in thedocuments of the International Council for the Ex-ploration of the Seas (ICES—see box 6-A). Addi-tionally, the very extensive experience of U.S.Army Corps of Engineers in lifting, redepositing,

37 gravel mining in the Ambrose Chan-

nel of New York Harbor and a gold mining operation off Nome,Alaska, (see 5).

and monitoring sediments from dredging opera-tions provides insights into the effects of shallowwater mining. In particular, the 5-year DredgedMaterial Research Program (DMRP) (see box 6-B) attempted to cover all types of environmentalsettings offshore, The information gathered is rele-vant to the activities involved in mining sand andgravel or placer deposits. Finally, there are tworegional efforts—The New England Offshore Min-ing Environmental Study (NOMES) (see box 6-C), and Sea Grant studies in New York Harbor


(see box 6-D) that examined naturally occurringpopulations of organisms on the seafloor in thenortheastern United States where shallow watermining operations are likely to take place. Guide-lines have been established by EPA and the Corpsof Engineers (see box 6-E) for testing the impactsof dumping dredged material which may, in turn,provide information about effects of concern fromrejected mining material.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports sug-gest that concerns about water quality degradationfrom the resuspension of dredged material are, forthe most part, unfounded. Generally, only mini-mal chemical and biological impacts from dredg-ing and disposal have been observed over the short-t e r m38. Most organisms studied were relatively in-sensitive to the effects of sediment suspensions orturbidity. Release of heavy metals and their up-

MR, A. Geyer (cd.), Marjne Environmental Pollution, Dumping

and Mining, Elsevier Oceanography Series 27B (Amsterdam-Oxford,New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 1981).

take into organism tissues have been rare. The con-clusion of the Dredged Material Research Program(DMRP) is that biological conditions of most shal-low water areas—areas of high wave action—appear to be influenced to a much greater extentby natural variation in the physical and chemicalenvironment than they are by dredging or drilling.The NOMES and Sea Grant studies corroboratethe Corps of Engineer’s finding, that in shallowwater, there is much natural variation in both thedistribution and abundance of species on the un-altered seafloor; these latter studies conclude thatit is impossible to generalize about the effects ofmining on all shallow water environments given thetremendous variability from site to site. This con-clusion suggests that, if a mined area is comparedwith an unmined area, changes due to the dredg-ing might not be statistically detectable becauseeither:

● the mining really had a minimal impact, or● the tremendous variability between sites masked

the changes that occurred at the mining site.

[Page Omitted]

This page was originally printed on a gray background.The scanned version of the page is almost entirely black and is unusable.

It has been intentionally omitted.If a replacement page image of higher quality

becomes available, it will be posted within the copy of this report

found on one of the OTA websites.

Ch. 6—Environmental Considerations 231

column appears to cause only local and minor re-ductions in plankton productivity. The abundanceand types of species found on the bottom alsochange.41 When the substrate type is changed dueto the dredging activities (e. g., removal of gravel-.or a sand layer on top of ‘bed-rock) then adverseeffects may be persistent .42 The benthic commu-

‘lS.J. de Groot, Bibliography of Literature Dealing with the Ef-fmts of Mm”ne Sand and Gravel Extraction on Fisheries (The Nether-lands: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, MarineEnvironmental Quality Committee, 1981); de Groot, “The Poten-tial Environmental Impact of Marine Gravel Extraction in the NorthSea. ”

4zIntemation~ Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Second Re-port of the ICES Working Group on Effects on Fisheries of MarineSand and Grave] Extraction, Cooperative Research Report No. 64,

nities that are established in the area after remov-ing the top layers may differ significantly from theprior communities.43

Of great concern to the European communityis the potential detrimental effects of mining oncommercial fisheries. Removal of gravel in herring

(Charlottenlund, Denmark: ICES, April 1977); International Coun-cil for the Exploration of the h, Marine Environmental Quality Com-mittee, Report of the ZCES Working Group on Effmts on Fishen’esof Marine Sand and Gravel Extraction, (Charlotterdund, Denmark:ICES, 1979).

43A. p. Cressard ~d C. P. Augris, ‘‘French Shelf Sand and GravelRegulati~s, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference,OTC 4292, 1982.


spawning areas or on sandbanks where sand eelshide at night adversely affects these fisheries44.While direct negative effects of dredging on adultfish stocks has not been clearly demonstrated, theseconcerns remain. To protect fishing interests, ICESproposed a “Code of Practice. ’45 Elements of thiscode have been adopted by France and the UnitedKingdom. The code requires that the exact bound-aries of the mining area and the amount and thick-ness of the sediment layer to be removed be speci-fied. In addition, the expected condition of theseabed after completion of dredging operationsmust be described, including the amount of gravelremaining to enable herring to spawn.

441t i5 st~ not ICIIOWI why herring select a specific spawning groundor what the selection criteria are for sand eel (Ammodytes) in theirchoice of a specific bank in which to dig.

451ntemation~ Councti for the Exploration of the Sea.

From the U.S. and European work discussedabove, it appears that there are three ways to min-imize the environmental effect of mining operationsin near-shore areas, namely:

1.

2.

3.

identify and avoid environmentally sensitiveareas with regard to biota, spawning areas,migration, currents, coastline erosion, etc.;where mining does occur, use dredging equip-ment that minimizes destruction of the bot-tom as well as production of both surface andbottom particulate benthic plumes; andeffectively restore the site to its original pre-mining condition—mine and ‘‘reclaim’ thearea by smoothing seafloor gouges and replac-ing removed sediment with a similar type andgrain-size. (Note: While this option may befeasible in certain cases, it is expensive andenergy-intensive. Because little information


Photo credit’ Southern California Coastal Research Project Authority

Coastal regions are the most biologically productiveareas of the ocean. Because offshore mining is mostlikely to occur here first, care must be taken to avoid

areas important for fisheries.

exists on reclamation, this option will not beconsidered below.

Information from many existing environmentalstudies 46-51 can be combined to characterize the

of Oceanography and

Assessment, Ocean Assessments Division, Strategic AssessmentsBranch, Coastal and Ocean Zones, Strategic Assessment: Data The atlases consist of maps a range of topics on physical andbiological environments (geology, surface temperatures, and aquatic

I ing marine resources (species of fishes,birds, and mammals); economic activities (population distribution andseafood product ion); environmental quality (oil and grease discharge);and jurisdictions (political boundaries and environmental quality man-agement areas) The Eastern United States (125 maps) was

by the Department of Commerce in 1980; it is now out-of-print.The Gulf of Mexico ( 163 four-color maps) was printed by the

Government Printing Office in 1985. The Bering, and Seas ( 127 maps) will be printed early in 1987 The

Coast and of Alaska is scheduled for 1988 publication.

areas of prime ecological concern. Dredging andmining operations can then avoid prime fish andshellfish areas especially during times of reproduc-tion and migration. The OTA Workshop on Envi-ronmental Concerns stressed that a compendiumof such information should be developed; currently,there are many sources of data52 housed in differ-ent agencies or institutions, but it is difficult to com-pare or combine them.

Historically, the dredging industry has empha-sized increasing production rather than reducingsediment in the water column or minimizing dam-age to the environment. Information on particu-late levels and other effects caused by differentdredge designs exists (see table 6-l). U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers field studies indicate that thebutterhead dredge produces most of its turbiditynear the bottom, as does the hopper dredge with-

A national atlas of 20 maps the health and use coastal watersof the U.S. is also being produced by The first arc. Disposal Sites, Systems, Oil Production. Dredging ties, and NOAA’s National Status and Trends Program Future mapsarc scheduled on hazardous waste sites, marine mammals, fisheriesmanagement areas, and other similar topics.

Department of the Fish and Services ‘ ‘Gulf Coast al User’s

Guide and Information ‘‘ August ‘‘ Pacific Coast Ecolog-ical Inventory, User’s Guide I ion Base, October ;and ‘ ‘Atlantic- Coast Ecological Inventory, Guide and mat ion Base,

Ecosystems Aria]}, (MESA), New Atlas Monograph Series, New York Bight Project, New Grant Institute, Albany, 1975, especially Monographs 13-15 (’ ‘Plank-ton Systematic and Distribution Malone, ‘‘ Fauna by

Pearce and D. and “Fish Distribution” M.D. lein and A.

of the Interior, Minerals Management ice, ‘‘ Proposed 5-Year Outer Continental Oil and Gas LeasingProgram, Mid-1987 to Mid-1992, ” Final Impact State-ment, Volumes I and January 1987. There are 22 planning areasfor oil and gas within the U.S. For each area, ion bas been collected on biological geologic and icalconditions, physical oceanography, and soc ic ions.About $400 million has gone into the Environmental Studies Programsince 1973. Hundreds of paper-s and reports been published asa result; these are listed and summarized in En Studies

OCS Report 86-0020, U.S. Department of Interior,Minerals Management

F r e e m a n ‘

States Atlantic Coast, Fish, Fishing and Fishing Facilities,prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA, 1976.

Scripps Institution C)ceanogr aphy, California

Oceanic Fisheries In\’estimations A-027. The distributionsof species in the California Current Region are mapped in a 30-volumeatlas series. This series is one of the few long-term monitoring of a large region; records from 1949 to the present clay.

the cited here, there arc many and local studies.

—


Table 6-1.—Environmental Perturbations from Various Mining Systems

Mining method Seabed Water column

Mining Mining Fragmentation/ Turbidity Suspended Dissolvedapproaches systems collection Excavation plume Resedimentation Subsidence particulate substances

Scraping Drag line dredge ● ● ● ● ●

Trailing cuttersuction dredge ● ● * ● * ● * ●

Rock cutter sectiondredge ● ● ● ● ●

Crust-miner ● ● * ● ●

Continuous linebucket ● ● ● ● ●

Clams shell bucket ● ● * ● ●

Bucket ladderdredge ● ● ● ● ●

Bucket wheeldredge ● ● * ● * ● * ●

Excavating Anchored suctiondredge ● ● * ● * ● * ●

Cutterhead suctiondredge ● ● ● ● ●

Drilling and blasting ● *

Tunneling Shore entry ●

beneath Artificial island entry ●

seafloorFluidizing Slurrying ●

(sub-seafloor) Leaching“ Applicable or potentially applicable.“ ● Relative major perturbation.

SOURCE: Errvirorrrnental Effects Llocumerrt prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Regulatory Task Force for Leasing of Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and SulphurIn the Outer Continental Shelf, unpublished draft, October 1986.

out overflow. The bucket dredge and the hopperdredge with overflow, however, produce suspendedsediments throughout the water column. The mod-ified dustpan dredge appears to suspend more solidsthan a conventional butterhead dredge .53

A typical bucket dredge operation produces aplume of particulate extending about 1,000 feetdowncurrent at the surface and about 1,600 feetnear the bottom .54 In the immediate vicinity of theoperation, the maximum concentration of sedimentsuspended at the surface should be less than 500mg/l and should rapidly decrease with distance.Water column concentrations generally should beless than 100 mg/l.55 When mining stops, the tur-bidity plume will settle rapidly.

The dispersion of a turbidity plume can be ef-fectively altered by the configuration of the pipe-

5sFor more information on dredge designs, see Ch. 4.WW, D, Barnard, P&jctjon and Control of Dredged Material Dis-

persion Around Dredging and Open Water Pipeline DisposaJ Oper-ations, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks-burg, MS, Technical Report DS-78-13, August 1978.

55 Sediment suspended by a dredge is similar to the amount of dis-turbance produced by a small-scale storm.

line at the point of discharge (see figure 6-5).56 Pipe-line angles that minimize water column turbidity(e.g., with a 90-degree angle) produce mud moundsthat are thick but cover a minimum area. Con-versely, those that generate the greatest turbidityin the water column disperse widely and producerelatively thin mud mounds of maximum areal ex-tent .57

Many parameters, such as particle settling rates,discharge rate, water depth, current velocities, andthe diffusion velocity, all interact to control the sizeand shape of the turbidity plume. As water cur-rent speed increases, the plume will grow longer.As the dredge size increases or particle settling ratesdecrease, the plume size will tend to increase58. Fi-nally, with lower rates of dispersion or particle set-

MJ. R. Schubel et al. , Field Znvescigations of the Nature, Degree,and Extent of Turbidity Generated by Open Water Pipeline DisposalOperations , U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Technical Report, Vicksburg, MS, D-78-30, July 1978.

57A gener~ ~]e of thumb is that, as the height of the redepositedmound decreases by a factor of two, the areal coverage increases bya factor of two. But as the mound height decreases, the amount ofwave-induced resuspension of the surface material will also decrease.

5gIn addjtjon, as the diffusion ve]ocity increases fOr a given currentvelocity, the plume becomes longer and wider, while the solids con-centrations in the plume decrease.


Figure 6-5.—The Effect of Discharge Angle and Water Current on the Shape and Depth of Redeposited Sediments

Vertical discharge Horizontal discharge

If mining ships discharge unwanted sediments through a vertical pipe (left portion of diagram) seafloor deposits will covera smaller area but to a greater depth than if a horizontal discharge pipe is used (right side of diagram) which results in a largebut thin “footprint” of sediments. The movement of water current (bottom of diagram) will similarly expand the area of theseafloor blanketed by sediment but decrease the depth of the deposit overall.

SOURCE: Modified from W. Barnard, “Prediction and Control of Dredged Material Dispersion Around Dredging and Open Water Pipeline Disposal Operations,” U.S.Army Corps Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report DS 7S-13, August 1979.

tling or an increase in water depth, the length of extends vertically from the water surface to a speci-time required for the plume to dissipate after the fied depth around the area of discharge. At present,disposal operation has ceased will increase. silt curtains have limited usefulness; they are not

recommended for ( ‘operations in the open ocean,One method for physically controlling the dis- in currents exceeding one knot, in areas frequently

persion of turbid water is a ‘‘silt curtain. ” (see fig- exposed to high winds and large breaking waves,ure 6-6). A silt curtain is a turbidity barrier that or around hopper or butterhead dredges where fre-


Figure 6-6.—Silt Curtain

, PIPELINE

BOTTOM SEDIMENT

SOURCE: Modified from US. Army Corps of Engineers, ‘(Executive Overview andDetailed Summary, ” Synthesis of Research Results, DMRP Program,U.S. Army Corps Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,MS, Technical Report DS 78-22, December 1978.

quent curtain movement would be necessary. ’59

Once environmental effects are better defined, engi-neering techniques can be developed to addressthem. For example, Japanese industry has devel-oped a system that may reduce turbidity in thesurface layers of the water column when sedimentis discarded. Air bubbles entrained in the waterduring dredge filling and overflow exacerbate thesurface turbidity plume associated with hydraulichopper dredging. A system, called the “Anti-Turbidity Overflow System” employed by theIshikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Company,Ltd., (IHI) reportedly separates air from the waterprior to overflow. According to IHI data, the re-sult is a clear water column and, presumably, asmaller area of fine sediment at the dredge sitecaused by particles that settle rapidly.

SgBarnard, PmdiC[;on and Control of Dredged Material Dispersion,p. 87.

DEEP WATER MINING STUDIES

In the deep-sea, the abundance of animal life de-creases with increasing depth and distance fromland. Deep-sea animals are predominantly re-stricted to the surface of the seafloor and the up-per few inches of the bottom. Species, especiallysmaller-sized organisms, are incompletely cata-logued at present, and little information is avail-able on their life cycles. The density of animals islow but diversity may be high. In these regions,the low total number of animals is thought to re-flect the restricted food supply, which comes fromeither residues raining into the deep sea from aboveor from in situ production. 60

All estimates of the environmental impacts ofdeepsea mining draw heavily on information fromthe Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study(DOMES), the only systematic long-term researchprogram conducted in very deep water. Justifica-tion for extrapolating from these deep-sea sites toothers rests on the hypothesis that, in general, theabyssal ocean is a much more homogeneous envi-ronment than shallow water environments.

DOMES: Deep Ocean MiningEnvironmental Study

DOMES was a comprehensive 5-year (1975-80)research program funded by NOAA. The goal wasto develop an environmental database to satisfy theNational Environmental Policy Act requirementsto assess the potential environmental impacts ofmanganese nodule recovery operations. G* Duringthe first phase of DOMES, the environmental con-ditions in the designated manganese nodule areaof the Pacific Ocean (i. e., the DOMES area) werecharacterized to provide a background againstwhich mining-produced perturbations could be latercompared. These baseline studies were carried outat three sites that covered the range of environ-mental parameters expected to be encountered dur-ing mining (see box 6-F).

The mining scenario presumed removal of nod-ules from the deep seabed by means of a collector(up to 65 feet wide) pulled or driven along theseabed at about 2 miles per hour. Animals on the

60 Deep. Wa biomass often correlates with primaIy productivity above;

areas beneath low productivity subtropical waters may be an orderof magnitude lower in biomass per unit area than at high latitudes.

GIU. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA OffIce of Ocean Mineralsand Energy, Deep Seabed Mining, Final Programmatic EnvironmentalImpact Statement, vol. 1, (Washington, D. C.: Department ofCommerce, September 1981).


Box 6-F.—Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES)

The objectives of the first phase of the DOMES program were:1.

2.3.

to establish environmental baselines at three sites chosen as representative of the range of selected envi-ronmental parameters likely to be encountered during nodule mining,to begin to develop the capability to predict potential environmental effects of nodule mining, andto contribute to the information base available to industry and government for development of appro-priate environmental guidelines.

Field work associated with the studies included upper water layer measurements of currents, light penetra-tion, and plant pigments and the primary productivity, abundance, and species composition of zooplanktonand nekton. Temperature, salinity, suspended p articulate matter, nutrients, and dissolved oxygen were meas-ured throughout the water column. Current measurements were also made in the benthic boundary layer.Abundance and distribution of benthic populations and characteristics of the sediments and pore water weredetermined. In addition, the seasonal and spatial variability of chemical and biological parameters at fouroceanographic depth zones were studied:

1. the surface mixed layer,2. the pycnocline,3. the bottom of the pycnocline to 1,300 feet, and4.1,300 to 3,300 feet—were characterized for future comparison with measurements made during actual

mining activities.The second phase of the DOMES project focused on refining predictive capabilities through analysis of

data acquired during pilot-scale tests of mining systems. Two successful pilot-scale mining tests were moni-tored in 1978, one using both hydraulic and air-lift mining systems, and one using air-lift only. Each testsaw hundreds of tons of manganese nodules brought from water depths of 13,000 to 16,400 feet to the surface.These tests established the engineering feasibility of deepsea mining, provided the first opportunity to observeactual effects of operations such as those envisioned for the next decade, and allowed comparisons of thoseeffects with earlier estimates of mining perturbations. During these tests, discharge volumes, particulate con-centrations, and temperature were measured from each mining vessel; limited studies were made of the sur-face and benthic plumes; and biological impact assessments were made. The second phase of DOMES con-sisted of monitoring actual pilot-scale mining simulation tests. Its objectives were:

● to observe actual environmental effects relevant to forecasting impacts, and● to refine the database for guideline development.

SOURCE: U.S. Dqwtmem of Commerce, NOM, Of&e of Ocean Mineral s and Energy Deep Seabed Mining, Final Programmatic Envinmmcntal Im-P&ct Swcnlcnt, vol. 1, September 19s1.

seafloor directly in the mining path or nearby wouldbe disturbed by the collector and the subsequentsediment plume. In addition, when the nodulesreached the mining ships, the remaining residue(consisting of bottom water, sediments, and nod-ule fragments) would be discharged over the sideof the ship, resulting in a surface discharge plumethat might also cause adverse impact.

The Final Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement concluded that of 20 to 30 possible neg-ative impacts (see table 6-2) from deepsea mining,only 3 were of sufficient concern to be investigatedas part of the 5-year research plan required by the1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act .62

bZpub]ic Law 96-283.

The first of the three important impacts occursat the seabed. First, the collection equipment willprobably destroy benthic biota, an impact which—as in the case of shallow water mining—appearsto be both adverse and unavoidable, The degreeof disturbance depends upon the kinds of equip-ment used and the intensity of mining. The affectedbiota include animals such as sea stars, brittle stars,sea urchins, sea cucumbers, polychaete worms, andsea anemones. NOAA did not identify any ben-thic endangered species in the area that may be af-fected by bottom disturbance, Most benthic ani-mals in the DOMES area appear to be tiny detritusfeeders that live in the upper centimeter of sedi-ment and are fed by organic material that falls fromupper waters. A worst-case estimate is that the ben-

Table 6-2.—Summary of Environmental Concerns and Potential Significant impacts of Deep-Sea Miningiii●

Potential significance of biological impact

Disturbance Potential biological impacts Probability of OverallInitial conditions Physico-chemical effects (remaining concerns in italics) occurrence Recovery rate Consequence significance

collector ●

●

●

Scour and compact Destroy benthic fauna in amountsediments near collector track

Light and sound Attraction to new food supply

Certain Unknown c Adverse Unavoidable*(uncertainsignificance)

None

Unknown”

Unknown

Unknown*

None

None

None

Unlikely Unknown(probably rapid)

Uncertain

Benthic plume Increased sedimentation ●

rate and increased sus-pended matter (“rain offines”)

Effect on Benthos—Covering of food supply

—Clogging of respiratory sur-faces of filter feeders

—Blanketing

Increased food supply forbenthosTrace metals uptake byzooplanktonLower dissolved oxygenfor organisms to utilize;mortality from anaerobicconditions

Likely

Likely

Unknown c

(probably slow)Unknown c

(probably slow)

Adverse

Adverse

Certain

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unknown c

(probably slow)Rapidd

Adverse

Possibly beneficial

No detectable

No detectableeffect

●

● Nutrient/trace metalincrease

9 Oxygen demand

Rapid

Rapid

Surface dischargeParticulate ● Increased suspended ●

particulate matterEffect on zooplankton—Mortality Unlikely Rapid d No detectable

effect b NoneNo detectable None

effectb

Locally adverse Low*Possibly beneficial None

—Change in abundance and/orspecies composition

—Trace metal uptake—Increased food supply due to

introduction of benthic bioticdebris and elevated microbialactivity due to increased sub-strate

Effect on adult fish

Effect on fish larvae

Unlikely Rapid d

Rapid d

Rapid d

UnlikelyUnlikely

Unlikely

Uncertain (low)

Unlikely

Unlikely

Certain

Very low

Very low

Very low

Very low

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Rapid d No detectableeffectb

Uncertain

None

Low*

None

Low

Low

None

None

None

None

Uncertain(probably rapid)RapidOxygen demand Low dissolved oxygen for

organisms to useEffect on primary productivity

No detectableeffect

Unknown (probablyundetectable)Locally adverse

s

●

●

Surface discharge ●

Dissolved substances

●

●

Pynocline accumulation Uncertain(probably rapid)RapiddDecreased light due to

increased turbidityIncreased nutrients

Decrease in primary productivity

Rapid dIncrease in primary productivity

Change in phytoplanktonspecies compositionInhibition of primaryproductivityEmbolism

No detectableeffectb

No detectableeffect b

No detectableeffect b

No detectable

RapiddIncrease in dissolvedtrace metalsSupersaturation indissolved gas content

Rapideffectb

qnciudes characteristics of the discharge and the mining system.bBas~ on experiment~meuurements conducted under DOMES.Cyears t. tens Of years or 10n9er.‘Days to weeks.Uncertain =Some knowledge exists; however the validity of extrapolations is tenuous.Unknown =Very little or no knowledge exists on the subjects; predictions mostly based on conjecture.● Areas of future research.SPM =Suspended Particulate Matter.

SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy, Deep Seabed Mining, Final Programmatic Envlronmenta/ /mpact Statement, vol. 1(Washington, DC: September 1963), p. 126.

— —


thic biota in about 1 percent of the DOMES area,or 38,000 square nautical miles, may be killed dueto impacts from first generation mining activities.Although recolonization is likely to occur after min-ing, the time period required is not known. No ef-fect on the water-column food chain is expected.

The second important type of impact identifiedis due to a benthic plume or ‘‘rain of fines’ awayfrom the collector which may affect seabed animalsoutside the actual mining tract through smother-ing and interference with feeding. Suspended sedi-ment concentrations decrease rapidly, but theplume can extend tens of kilometers from the col-lector and last several weeks after mining stops. Noeffect on the food chain in the water column is ex-pected due to the rapid dilution of the plume. How-ever, mining may interfere with the food supplyfor the bottom-feeding animals and clog the respi-ratory surfaces of filter feeders (such as clams andmussels). Such effects will involve biota in an esti-mated 0.5 percent or 19,000 square nautical milesof the DOMES area.

The third impact identified as significant is dueto the surface plume. Under the scenario, a 5,500 -ton-per-day mining ship will discharge about 2,200tons of solids (mainly seafloor sediment) and 3 mil-lion cubic feet of water per day. The resulting sur-face discharge plume may extend about 40 to 60miles with a width of 12-20 miles and will continueto be detectable for three to four days following dis-charge. As the mining operation is supposedly con-tinuous (300 days per year), the plume will be vis-ible virtually all the time. Surface plumes mayadversely affect the larvae of fish, such as tuna,which spawn in the open ocean. The turbidity inthe water column will decrease light available forphotosynthesis but will not severely affect thephytoplankton populations. The effect will be wellwithin the realm of normal light level fluctuationsand will resemble the light reduction on a cloudyday.

Follow-Up to DOMES:

Research by the National Marine Fisheries Serv-ice, under NOAA’s five-year plan, concluded thatthe surface plume was not really a problem due to

rapid dilution and dissipation. This study identi-fied another potential adverse effect that previously

had not been considered—that of thermal shock toplankton and fish larvae from discharge at the sur-face of cold deep water.

63 However, except for mor-tality of some tuna and billfish larvae (the two com-mercially important fish) in the immediate vicinityof the cold water (4-100 C) discharge, adverse ef-fects appear to be minimal.

Continued study of surface plumes suggests thatdischarged particulate will not accumulate on thepycnocline. 64 Because new measurements showmuch of the material discharged settled more slowlythan previously thought, the plumes will cover morearea.

In June 1983, Expedition ECHO I collected 15quantitative samples of the benthic fauna in the vi-cinity of DOMES site C (150 N, 1250 W). Thesesamples were collected for a study of potential im-pacts on the benthic community of a pilot-scale testmining by Ocean Mining Associates, carried out5 years earlier. Fauna from the immediate test min-ing area were compared with fauna from an area

63W. M. Matsumoto, Potential Impact of Deep Seabed Mining on

the Larvae of Tuna and BiWishes, SWFC Honolulu Laboratory, Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, prepared for NOAA Divi-sion of Ocean Minerals and Energy, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-44,Washington, D. C., 1984.

“J.W. Lavelle and E. Ozturgut, “Dispersion of Deep-Sea Min-ing Particulate and Their Effect on Light in Ocean Surface Layers,Marine Mining, VOI 3. (1982), No. 1/2, pp. 185-212.

Photo credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstration

The box core sampler is a standard tool for studyingocean bottoms. This particular sample, containingmanganese nodules, is from the DOMES area. Boxcores provide a relatively intact picture of the sediment

and animals in the top layers of the seafloor.


far enough away to have been undisturbed. Dis-turbance to the seafloor was either not extensiveenough to produce a statistically detectable differ-ence in community structure from unaltered areas,or recovery had taken place within 5 years. 65 Con-clusions were that the test mining was not indica-tive of an actual mining operation. Future researchwill include some short-term (30-day) sedimenta-tion studies to try to characterize the response timeof benthic animals to plume effects. 66

Recommendations for future research include:

●

●

●

studying a much larger mining effort or othersimilar impact on the benthos,sampling at the same sites previously sampledto develop trends over time, andevaluating data to detect differences at a com-munity level, not at individual or specieslevels.

Environmental Effects FromMining Cobalt Crusts

The environmental baseline data that DOMEScollected and the conclusions it drew about poten-tial impacts of nodule mining are somewhat appli-cable to mining cobalt crusts. The environmentalsetting described from the DOMES area has muchin common with proposed crust sites. DOMES sta-tions span the central and north Pacific basins andare in areas meteorologically similar to the Hawai-ian and Johnston Island EEZs. The environmentstudied was typical of the tropical and subtropicalPacific in terms of water masses, major currents,and vertical thermal structure. Species recorded inthe water column of the DOMES area are all char-acterized as having broad oceanic distributions. Thesettings differ primarily with respect to topographyand bottom type. The crusts occur on the slopesof seamounts with little loose sediment, while thenodule mine sites occur on plains carpeted withthick sediments. The two areas consequently dif-fer in their potential for resuspension of sediments.

Baseline benthic biological data collected in theDOMES study area are less analogous to the crustsites than are the water column pelagic data. The

—‘3 Spiess et al., Environmental Effects of Deep Sea Dredging.66)7d Myers, NOAA, Pers, Comm. , OTA Workshop on Environme-

ntal Concerns, October 1986.

chief depth range of interest for crust mining is2,500 to 8,000 feet. Bottom stations sampled in theDOMES area varied in depth from 14,000 to17,000 feet. Communities would be different be-cause of the substrate as well as the depth. TheDOMES sites consist of soft sediments interspersedwith hard manganese nodules; the crusts are hardrock surfaces with little sediment cover. The com-munities actually living on the manganese nodulehard surfaces may resemble the fauna on the crustpavement because the substrate composition is verysimilar.

Plume Effects

As part of the Manganese Crust EIS Project,mathematical models were constructed to simulatethe behavior of surface and benthic discharges. 67

This effort was based upon extensive modeling ofdredged material discharge dispersion conductedfor the Army Corps of Engineers’ Dredged Mate-rial Research Program.68 69

Surface Plume.—The DOMES data indicatethat a mining plume will increase suspended par-ticulate matter in the water by a factor often. Thiswould effectively halt photosynthesis about 65 feetcloser to the surface of the water than normal.

The results of field measurements made duringthe DOMES program were extrapolated to com-mercial-scale discharges and it was estimated thatthe surface plume could reduce daily primary pro-duction by 50 percent in an area 11 miles by 1 mileand by 10 percent over an area as large as 34 milesby 3 miles. The shading effect will only persist un-til the bulk of the mining particulate settle, usu-ally within a period of less than a day. Since it takesphytoplankton 2 to 3 days to adapt to a new lightregime, the short-term shading effect of particu-lates is not likely to affect the light-adaptation char-

67E. K. Noda & Associates and R.C .Y. Koh, ‘‘Fates and Trans-port Modeling of Discharges from Ocean Manganese Crust Mining, ’prepared for the Manganese Crust EIS Project, Research Corpora-tion the University of Hawaii, Hono]u]u, HI, 1985.

G8B. H, J o h n s o n , 1 ’74* ‘ ‘Investigation of Mathematical Models forthe Physical Fate Prediction of Dredged Material, U.S. Army Engi-neer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Hydraulics Lab-oratory, Technical Report D-74- 1, March 1974.

WM, G. Brandsma and D.J. Divoky, 1976, “Development of Modelsfor Prediction of Short-term Fate of Dredged Material Discharged inthe Estuarine Environment, ” Tetra Tech, Inc., Pasadena, CA, Con-tract Report D-76-5, May 1976.


Photo credit: Barbara Lament-Doherty Observatory

Brittle stars and corals, shown here at 2,000-foot water depth, are two common kinds of animals living on hard substratesin the deep sea.

acteristics of the phytoplankton. No other poten- The crust mining surface plume will contain moretial effects (including increased production due to solids in less water than the nodule mining surfacenutrient enrichment or heavy metal toxicity) could plume, but the crust particles are larger and settlebe demonstrated.70 out faster. Thus, the area of reduced primary prod-

Application of the DOMES conclusions to theuctivity probably would be approximately 50 per-cent smaller than that predicted for the nodule sce-

crust mining scenario requires some modifications. nario, a very short-term localized impact. 71

Bottom Plume. —A bottom plume would be Department of Commerce, Seabed generated from the movement of the mining equip-

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Minerals Manage-ment Service, Statement: Proposed MarineMineral Lease Sale in the Hawaiian Archipelago and Johnston land Exclusive Economic Zone, Honolulu, HI, (1987), 208. D e p a r t m e n t of the Interior , . .


ment on the bottom and, in an emergency, fromrelease of materials in the lift pipe. Ten hours af-ter suspension, most material will be redepositedwithin 65 feet of the miner track, but only 1 per-cent of the smallest particles will be redeposited after100 hours. From the test mining data, the research-ers calculated that about 90 percent of the resus-pended material would be redeposited within 230feet of the miner track, and the maximum redepo-sition thickness would be a little more than half aninch thick near the centerline of the track. 7*

The crust scenario envisions recovery of abouttwo-thirds of the ore volume of the nodule scenariobut assumes a much thinner range of overburden.Peak base-case crust miner redeposition thicknesseswere about one-thousandth of an inch. 73 There isa highly significant difference between the two min-ing scenarios. The ‘‘worst case’ scenario for crustmining, 74 would result in less than 1 percent of themaximum deposition in the nodule mining scenario.

From the DOMES baseline data (average of 16macrofaunal individuals/ft2) and an assumed nod-ule mining scenario, Jumars75 calculated that a nod-ule miner would directly destroy 100 billion indi-viduals. In comparison, data from a case study doneat Cross Seamount (see box 6-G) indicate that pas-sage of the crust miner over 11 mi2 per year woulddirectly destroy from 100,000 to 10,000 macro-faunal organisms at 2,600 and 7,800 feet respec-tively. The DOMES and Cross Seamount data-bases differ in that infaunal organisms (thoseactually living within the sediments) were not sam-pled in the Cross Seamount reconnaissance. How-ever, the crusts provide little sediment for organ-isms to inhabit. Nevertheless, it appears that thenumber of macrofaunal organisms destroyed in thecrust mining scenario is orders of magnitude less(one-millionth to one ten-millionth) than in the nod-ule scenario. 76

72J.W. Lavelle et al. “Dispersal and Resedimentation of the Ben-thic Plume from Deep-Sea Mining Operations: A Model with Calibra-t i ons , Marine Mining, vol. 3 (1982), No. 1/2, pp. 185-212.

T3U S Depanment of the Interior, Minerals Management Serv-. .ice, p. 197.

T4M ining at the sh~]owest depth and superimposition of sUrfaCe

and bottom plume footprints.75Jumars, “Limits in Predicting and Detecting Benthic Commu-

nity Responses.T6U S Depa~ment of the Interior, Minerals Management Serv-. .

ice, p. 240.

The severity of the impacts on populations inareas adjacent to the miner track would be deter-mined by the intensity of the disturbance, i.e.,proximity to the track, and the type of feeding be-havior characteristic of the population. As in thecase with shallow water mining, highly motile or-ganisms such as fish, amphipods, and shrimp wouldbe most able to avoid localized areas of high redepo-sition and turbidity. Once conditions become toler-able, these organisms could venture into the minedarea to feed on the dead and damaged organisms.

The area mined may be invaded by opportunis-tic species with dispersal capabilities greater thanthose of the original resident species. Reestablish-ment of the original community has been postu-lated to take a very long time, perhaps decades orlonger.

Temperature

Comparing the ambient surface water tempera-ture in the lease areas with a temperature of 4 to10 degrees C for the bottom water released at thesurface, there is reason to believe that eggs and lar-vae coming into direct contact with the cold dis-charge water could be affected adversely; such ef-fects should be limited to the area immediatelybeneath the ship’s outfall.77

To estimate the annual loss of tuna larvae andthe impact of this loss on adult fish biomass, it wasassumed that all tuna eggs and larvae coming intodirect contact with the cold water discharge coulddie. At least 46,000 skipjack tuna and 15,000 yel-lowfin tuna could be lost annually due to thermalmortality. These values would be about four timeslarger if the mining ship acts as a fish aggregatingdevice by concentrating tuna schools in the imme-diate vicinity.

The loss of adult fish biomass due to death oflarvae would be a very small fraction (less than 1percent) of the total annual harvest of these spe-cies in the central and eastern North Pacific. Thecrust mining scenario assumes a surface plume vol-ume about 60 percent that of the nodule miningscenario, and the effects of thermal mortality of lar-val fish would be reduced proportionately.

77 Matsumoto, “Potential Impact of Deep Seabed Mining. ” Con-tact of larvae with cold water could cause the development of deformedlarvae.


Threatened and Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)78

prohibits ‘‘attempts’ to harass, pursue, hunt, etc.,listed species. The ESA also prohibits significantenvironmental modification or degradation to thehabitat used by threatened and endangered species,as well as any act that significantly disrupts natu-ral behavior patterns.

7816 U.S.C. 1531

Living within the general proposed lease area ofthe cobalt crusts are the endangered Hawaiianmonk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), the endan-gered humpback whale Megaptera novaea gliae),the threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas),an occasional endangered hawksbill (Eretmochelysimbricata), the threatened loggerhead (Carettacaretta), the endangered leatherback (Dermochelyscoriacea) and the threatened Pacific ridley(Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles. However, in


Photo credit: U. S. Geological Survey

Deep-sea Hydrothermal vent communities consist of exotic life forms such as these giant tube worms and crabsfrom the East Pacific Rise.

recognition of these species’ presence, the moredensely populated areas have been excluded fromleasing.

Gorda Ridge Task Force Efforts

In 1983, a draft Environmental Impact State-ment was circulated by the Minerals ManagementService in preparation for a polymetallic sulfideminerals lease offering in the Gorda Ridge area.Much of the discussions of potential environmentalimpacts drew from the DOMES work because therewas little site-specific information to summarize.In response to concerns that there was too little in-formation to adequately characterize the effects ofany prospecting or mining operation, the GordaRidge Task Force was set up to augment the draftEIS.

The major research efforts focused on charac-terization of the mineral resources and led to thediscovery of large deposits in the southern GordaRidge. However, a series of reports was also pre-pared by the State of Oregon under the TaskForce’s oversight summarizing the state of scien-tific information relating to the biology and ecol-ogy of the Gorda Ridge Study Area. The reportsincluded information on the benthos, 79 nekton,80

Boudrias and G. L. Taghon, The of Scientific Relating to Biological and Ecological Processes in the Region

of the Ridge, Northeast Pacific Ocean: State of Ore-gon, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR,Open File Report O-86-6, February 1986.

and D. L. Stein, The of Scientific InformationRelating to the Biology and Ecology of the Ridge Study Area,Northeast Pacific Ocean: State of Oregon, Department ofGeology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR, Open File ReportO-86-7, February 1986.

Ch. 6–Environmental Considerations ● 245

Box 6-H.-Gorda Ridge Study Results

Plankton

Most work on the study area is now 10-20 years old. No information exists on feeding ecology, secondaryproduction, and reproduction. The phytoplankton community is dominated by diatoms. Many estimates ofphytoplankton abundance were made in the 1960's;1 they indicate productivity in this region is low (e.g., chlo-rophylla concentration ranges from 0.1-0.8 mg/m3 throughout the year).

Nekton

Only one species-albacore (Thunnus alalunga) is commercially fished in the Gorda Ridge Lease area.Larvae and juvenile form of other commercially important species (the Dover and Rex sole) occur withinthe area. These larvae are far west of the shelf and slope areas where the adult populations live, and theirsurvival and input to the commercial fishery population is unknown. While occurrences of species of fish,

ammals with the Gorda Ridge area are fairly well-known,shrimps, swimming mollusks (cephalopods), and mtheir abundances, reproduction, growth rates, food habits, and vertical and horizontal migratory patterns are not.

Benthos

Little is known about the benthos of the Gorda Ridge area. Until recently, these rocky environments wereavoided by benthic ecologists because of the difficulty in sampling them. Photographic surveys from the sub-mersibles Alvin (1984) and Sea Cliff (1986) as well as from a towed-camera vehicle behind the S..P. Lee (1985)provide most of the benthic information for this area. The Gorda Ridge rift valley animals appear to be primarilyfilter feeders and detritus feeders. Soft sediment and rocky epifaunal communities appear to differ in speciescomposition; however, quantitative data from controlled photographic transects across the Ridge and takenclose to the substrate (3-6 ft. off the bottom) are needed to permit identification of smaller organisms. Non-vent areas may represent several types of environment with some areas of high particulate organic materialconcentrated by topographic features juxtaposed with off-axis rocky surfaces.

IS.G. Ellis, and J.H. Garbcr, T&c State of Scientific hdbmiation Relating to the IWogy and Ecology of the Goxia Ridge Study Area, iVomhcastPa&c Oceao: PIan4ton, Open-File Report 0-S6-S, State of Orcgon, Dqwtmcnt of Geology mid Mineral 1ndustri- (Portland, OR: February 19S6).

plankton, 81 seabirds,82 and epifaunal and infaunal

community structure.83 The information contained

in these reports was collected h-em a variety ofsources such as peer-reviewed journals, government

81S G Ellis and J. H. carb~r, The State of Scientific Information. ,Relating to the Biology and Ecology of the Gorda Ridge Study Area,Northeast Pacific Ocean: Plankton, State of Oregon, Department ofGeology and Mineral Industries, Portland, OR, Open-File ReportO-86-8, February 1986.

WILD, Krasnow, The State of Scientific Information Relating tothe Biology and Ecology of the Gorda Ridge Study Area, NortheastPacific Ocean: Seabirds, State of Oregon, Department of Geologyand Mineral Industries, Portland, OR, Open File Report O-86-9, Feb-ruary 1986.

UA, C, Carey, Jr,, D. L. Stein, and G. L. T’aghon, An~ySis of Ben-

thic Epifaumd and Znfaunal Community Structure at the Gonia Ridge,State of Oregon, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Port-land, OR, Open File Report 0-86-11, July 1986.

investigators, and active researchers, as well as lesstraditional sources such as fishing records, etc. Thereports are useful compendia identifying what base-line information exists for biota at and near the pro-posed lease area and what missing informationneeds to be developed before the effects of a min-ing operation can be fully characterized (see box6-H).

While active vent sites such as the Gorda Ridgearea often contain lush communities of unique spe-cies, the MMS has decided it will not lease suchareas for mining should they be encountered .8AThus, their discussion is not included here.

B4ThuS far, none have been found on the Gorda Ridge sites.

Chapter 7

Federal Programs forCollecting and Managing

Oceanographic Data

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................249Management of Data Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............250

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....251Conceptual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................251Organization.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................252Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................253

Survey and Charting Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............254USGS: The GLORIA Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............254NOAA: The Bathymetric Mapping Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255

Other Data Collection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....256National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . ........................256U.S. Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...263National Aeronautics and Space Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..265U.S. Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..266State and Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............267Academic and Private Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................267Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267

Classification of Bathymetric and Geophysical Data . .........................268Earlier Reviews of Data Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....271OTA Classification Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273Observations and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ........276

BoxBox Page

7-A. Major Producers and Users of EEZ Data. . . . . . . . . . . . ...................250


7-1, Regional Atlases of the EEZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........2587-2. MMS Seismic Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....2647-3. Sea Beam Bathymetry of Surveyor Seamount. . . . . . . .....................269

TableTable No. Page

7-1. Funding for EEZ Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............254

.

Chapter 7

Federal Programs for Collecting andManaging Oceanographic Data

INTRODUCTION

Several Federal agencies have responsibility tosurvey and collect data on the ocean. They are:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),l

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration (NOAA),2

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),3

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA),4

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),5

Minerals Management Service (MMS),6

the Bureau of Mines (BOM),7 and

] 43 U.S. C, 31 (a) and (b), The Organic Act of 1879, as amended;16 U.S. C. 1451-1456, Public Law 94-370, The Coastal Zone Manage-ment Act Amendments of 1976; 43 U. S.C. 1865, Public Law 95-372,The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978; 30LT. S.C. ]419 et seq., Public Law 96-283, The Deep Seabed HardMineral Resources Act of 1980; 43 U.S.C. 1301, Public Law 92-532,The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; andProclamation #5030, 48 Fed. Reg. 10605, Mar. 10, 1983.

233 U. S.C. 883 et seq. , The Act of Aug. 6, 1947, as amended; 84Stat 2090, Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970—Establishment of NOAA; 33 U. S,C. The National Ocean PollutionPlanning Act of 1978; 16 U.S. C. 1451-1456, Public Law 94-370, TheCoastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976; 43 U.S.C. 1847,Public Law 95-372, The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amend-ments of 1978; 30 U. S.C. 1419, Public Law 96-283, The Deep SeabedHard Mineral Resources Act of 1980; 16 U. SC. 1432, 33 U.S. C.1441, Public Law 92-532, The Marine Protection, Research and Sanc-tuaries Act of 1972; 16 U .S .C. 1801 et seq., Fishery Conservationand Management Act of 1976, and Proclamation No. 5030, 48 Fed.Reg. 10605, Mar. 10, 1983.

343 U. S, C, 1865, Public Law 95-372, The Outer Continental ShelfI.ands Act Amendments of 1978.

433 U .S. C. 1251 et seq. , Public Law 95-217, The Clean Water Act,as amended; 33 U. S.C. 1401, et seq., Public Law 92-532, The Ma-rine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

54, Public Law 93-577, Federaf Non-Nuclear Energy Research andDevelopment Act of 1974; 301, Public Law 95-91, EnerLgy Organiza-tion Act

C43 U.S. C. 1131-1356, Public Law 83-212, Public Law 93-627 andPublic Law 95-372, The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953as amended; 43 U. S.C. 1301-1315, Public Law 83-31, The SubmergedLands Act; 33 U.S. C. 1101-1108, Public Law 89-454, The CoastalZone Management Act of 1972; 43 U.S.C. 4321 ,4331-4335,4341-4347,Public Law 91-190, The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;Proclamation No. 5030, 48 Fed. Reg. 10605, Mar. 10, 1983, Exclu-sive F,conom ic Zone of the United States of America.

730 U.S. C. 21 (a), Public Law 91-631, The Mining and MineralsPolicy Act of 1970; 30 U.S. C. 1602, 1603, Public Law 96-479, TheNational Materials, and Minerals Policy, Research, and DevelopmentAct of 1980.

● the U.S. Navy. a

Some of the designated agencies do not maintainactive research programs in the Exclusive EconomicZone (EEZ). Of those collecting data, some are in-volved in survey activities while others conductmore localized research. The agencies conductingbroad-scale exploration of the EEZ are NOAA (theDepartment of Commerce) and USGS (the Depart-ment of the Interior). Several agencies and publicand private laboratories collect EEZ informationranging from site-specific mineral analyses to assess-ments of biological resources and various physicaland chemical parameters of the oceans; these datacollectors include NOAA (four groups),9 MMS,BOM, USGS, the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA), the U.S. Navy, privateindustry, and academic and private laboratories(see box 7-A). All of their data must be archivedand accessed.

Exploration and development of the U.S. Exclu-sive Economic Zone is not proceeding economicallyor efficiently under current programs. There is nosystematic mechanism for data collection, with theexception of plans to ‘ ‘map’ the EEZ (by USGSusing the GLORIA side-looking sonar system andNOAA using multi-beam systems). The NOAAand USGS efforts will provide the first survey ofthe vast territory contained in the EEZ; theseprojects, however, are plagued by budget problems,and completion is uncertain. The many other stagesof research necessary before development of U.S.seabed resources can take place (e. g., comprehen-sive three-dimensional mineral assessment, devel-opment of rapid sampling technologies, etc. ) arelargely either unplanned or proceeding in a piece-meal fashion.

810 ~’.s,c, 7203 and 10 USC. 5 ~ 51.‘Nationaf Ocean Service, including the Strategic Assessment Branch

and Charting and Geodetic Services; National Marine Fisheries Sen-ice; the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Sem.-ice, including the National Geophysical Data Center and the NationalOceanographic Data Center; and the Office of Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Research.

249

72-672 0 - 87 -- 9


MANAGEMENT OF DATA RESOURCES

Effective data management is a critical part ofany systematic survey or research effort,10 but man-agement of EEZ data has been elusive. There areseveral aspects to the problem. Many differentgroups (Federal laboratories and agencies, State ge-ologists, academic research laboratories, and indus-try) collect, use, and/or archive many kinds of datafrom the EEZ. Data of many kinds and differentquantities are collected. Consistent reporting for-mats are not necessarily used. These problems willworsen as sensors (e. g., satellites, multi-beam echo-

management is defined as the process of planning, collect-ing, processing, and analyzing for primary use (e. g., for research);and storing, archiving, and distributing the acquired data for secondaryusers.

sounders, and multi-channel seismic reflectionrecorders) produce data at faster rates. Realizationof the scope of this data management problem isg r o w i n g .ll 12 13

‘There are problems with the way data are currently managed.The distribution, storage, and communication of data currently limitthe efficient extraction of scientific results . . .‘ National ResearchCouncil, Data Management and Computation, Volume Issues andRecommendations (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982).

‘z’’ Given the lack of long-term interest in managing the nationalenvironmental data archive in academia and the private sector, theFederal government must be responsible for maintaining this nationalasset . . . “ National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere,An Assessment of the Roles and Missions of the Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, unpublished report, 1987, p. 71;“ . . . Current NOAA data management systems and policies needto be carefully reexamined. . . . If urgent steps are not taken, . . . theutility of the data centers, a national asset, will continue to

Ch. 7—Federal Programs for Collecting and Managing Oceanographic Data ● 251

There are several possible constraints to an ef-fective EEZ data management program. They are:

● technology— hardware/software,● conceptual —how should the data be managed,● organization —capacity for collecting and ar-

chiving data, and● economic—adequate funding.

Technology

Computer, software, and recording technologieshave advanced dramatically during the past fewyears and are expected to continue to advance rap-idly. Technologies for collecting, aggregating,transmitting, and accessing data are not limiting.None of the key data managers queried by OTA14

thought the rate of EEZ data acquisition would ex-ceed the capacity of, or tax, existing high-densitymagnetic tape storage. The promise of optical la-ser disks a few years hence could make digital datastorage easily manageable. Storage of analog data,or actual physical and chemical samples (e. g., sedi-ment cores), remains a substantial problem. How-ever, these are physical space problems as opposedto data management problems per se. If all datacould be converted to digital form, technology op-

decline. ” Ibid., p. 63; “ . There are three principal requirementsthat are integral to this issue: ( 1 ) steadily upgraded computer systemsare needed to manage the expanding rate of data acquisition; (2) com-plicated data management decisions must be made regarding (a)amount and type of data to archive and (b) optimal format for futureuse; and (3) a more responsive and efficient mechanism for the con-tinued delivery of valuable and timely data products . . . must befound. Ibid.

‘3’ ‘The quantity of geophysical data obtained with public fundinghas increased dramatically in the past few decades. These data areused not only by the scientific community, but are also important tothe general public for use by engineers, lawyers, and insurance actu-aries as examples. Collected often at enormous expense, they repre-sent a national resource that must be managed carefutly to ensure theyare presemed and available when needed. Because of a substantialincrease in the amount and complexity of geophysical data being col-lected and in the demands for them, the management policies andprocedures that have been developed are no longer adequate. ” Na-tional Research Council, Policy Issues Concerning Geophysical Data,A Draft Report prepared by the Geophysics Study Committee for theGeophysics Research Forum, February 1986.

I’Roy L. Jenne, Head Data Support Section, National Center forAtmospheric Research; Michael Chinnery, Director, National Geo-physical Data Center (NGDC); Michael Loughridge, Chief, NGDCMarine Geology and Geophysics Division; Gregory Withee, Direc-tor, National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC); Robert Locher-man, Information Services Division, NODC; Edward Escowitz, Of-fice of Marine Geology, USGS; D. James Baker, Director of JOI,Inc.; Ross Heath, Oregon State University.

tions for storage, maintenance, and dispersal arenot limiting.

Conceptual

Data management has been the subject of manyexhaustive studies. 15 While the volume of informa-tion collected from the EEZ does not nearly ap-proach the volume of space data collected by satel-lites, many of the principles and recommendationsfor handling space data are applicable to the EEZas well. These principles include:

. involvement of scientists in data collection pro-grams from inception to completion,

● peer-review of data management activities bythe user community,

● proper documentation of all data sets that havebeen validated, and

. adequate financial resources allocated early ineach project for database management andcomputation activities. 16

There are also important differences in data ob-tained in the EEZ and data taken from space. Un-like satellite information, much of the EEZ data hasnot been collected in digital form and cannot beeasily archived or manipulated. EEZ data also varyin geographic scales and degree of detail (a 60-km-wide GLORIA swath v. a 200-m-wide SeaMARCCL swath) and may consist of different measures,e.g., water current measurements, sediment depth,and bedrock type. Researchers would like to be able

:sFour studies ~~aining to data management have been producedby the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sci-ences alone (Washington, DC: National Academy Press): ‘ ‘Geophysi-cal Data Interchange Assessment, 1978; “Solar-Terrestrial Data Ac-cess, Distribution, and Archiving, 1984; ‘ ‘Geophysical Data Centers:Impact of Data-Intensive Programs, ” 1976; and “Policy Issues Con-cerning Geophysical Data, (in review). From other groups: “Re-search Data Management in the Ecological Sciences, Proceedings ofthe 1983 Integrated Data Users Workshop, Nov. 1-2, 1983, USGS,Reston, VA (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN); “Frontiers inData Storage, Retrieval and Display, ” Proceedings of a Marine Ge-ology and Geophysics Data Workshop, Nov. 5-7, 1980 (Boulder, CO:National Geophysical and Solar-Terrestrial Data Center, 1980); andProceedings of Marine Geologp”caf Data Management Workshop, May22-24, 1978 (Boulder, CO: NOAA, 1978). Several papers by RoyL. Jenne, Head, Data Support Section, National Center for Atmos-pheric Research, include: “Strategies to Develop and Access LargeSets of Scientific Data, ” 1980 and “Data Archiving and Manage-ment, 1986.

1 cNation~ Research Council, Space Sciences Board, Data ~an -agement and Computation, Volume 1: Issues and Recommendations(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982).


Banks of disk-drive units retrieve and store information at USGS headquarters in Reston, Virginia.

to superimpose many kinds of features, e.g., site-specific mineral samples on bathymetric maps thatinclude information about the physical and chem-ical properties of an area. Aggregation of such dis-parate data sets makes EEZ data management par-ticularly difficult.

Missing components in the current EEZ dataprograms are interagency/intergovernmental ap-proaches, regional databases/datacenters, and pri-vate-public cooperatives. Activities that require at-tention include acquisition of wider ranges of datasets, preparation of comprehensive inventories ofpublic domain data sets, quality control of exist-ing data sets, and reformatting data sets so that theycan be integrated for interdisciplinary research. Aninventor-y of available data is needed along with anassessment of its adequacy.

Organization

The nucleus for a comprehensive data manage-ment system exists. A joint USGS/NOAA Officefor Research and Mapping in the Exclusive Eco-nomic Zone17 is being created to coordinate theplans and activities of these two major governmentagencies concerned with the EEZ and to providea focus for activities of other government agenciesand private academic and industrial institutions. 18Many interagency agreements exist that providefor and/or encourage the transfer of geophysical and

to be released in 1987. the functions of this office will be to ‘‘develop a

National EEZ plan to include goals, priorities, resources, andshort/long term strategies. An annual report will be made to Con-gress outlining yearly activities, significant results, and recommen-dations.


oceanographic data from the collecting agenciessuch as USGS, MMS, and the Department of De-fense (DoD) to the two major NOAA national datacenters— the National Oceanographic Data Cen-ter (NODC) in Washington, D. C., 19 and the Na-tional Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) in Boul-der, Colorado .20

Data collected by the academic community underthe auspices of the National Science Foundation(NSF), Division of Ocean Sciences, should be ulti-mately submitted to the national centers. The Di-vision’s Ocean Data policy specifies that lists of alldata collected under its sponsorship (primarily ma-rine geology and geophysics data) ‘ ‘be submittedto the appropriate NOAA/NESDIS [National Envi-ronmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service]national data center within 30 days of the comple-tion of each cruise, that surface and mixed-layertemperature and salinity data ‘‘be submitted in realtime” (i.e., within 48 hours of the observation),and that longer term data be submitted within 2years. This policy seeks to ensure an appropriatebalance between the needs of NSF researchers andsecondary users. Producers, managers, and second-ary users of oceanographic data have respondedwell to this policy; unfortunately, there is no mech-anism for mandating transfer of the actual data atthe completion of a grant period. Incentives to sup-pliers, such as reimbursement for the cost of copy-ing data, formatting it in a standard way, and otherhardware/software expenses would greatly facilitatearchiving of data. The details of the NSF require-ments are now under review, and a revised datapolicy is expected in early 1988. At the request ofU.S. academic research scientists,21 NSF agreed toexplore with other Federal agencies whether theNSF ocean data policy could serve as the basis for

19FOr ~xamp]e, an inform~ working agreement specifies that the

Bureau of Land Management require its contract researchers to pro-\’ide all data for archival in NESDIS centers ( 1978) and that the Na-tional Science Foundation require that appropriate data collected byresearchers working under NSF Ocean Sciences sponsorship be pro-vided to ,NESDIS centers as part of contract fulfillment (1 982).

‘20 For Cxamp]e, Marine Geological and Geophysical Data Manage-ment Agreement, NOAA and USGS, April 1985; and Geological andGeophysical Data Dissemination Agreement, MMS and NOAA, May1985. Other interagency understandings (with NSF, NOS, and DOD)are rooted in policy, precedent, and unilateral instruction but are notspelled out in formal interagency agreements.

ZIAs part of p]anning for data management actiirities in support ofthe Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Study (TOGA) and the WorldOcean Circulation Experiment (WOCE).

development of a government wide ocean data pol-icy. NSF has convened two meetings of agency ex-perts to consider this question, This effort couldresult in a draft ocean data policy presented to eachof the interested agencies for their review and adop-tion by the beginning of the 1988 fiscal year.22

Funding

Since fiscal year 1980, the base funding forNODC 23 and NGDC24 has diminished in real dol-lars. At the same time, the workloads of bothcenters have increased, Estimates indicate that thedigital data storage requirements for NODC willtriple in the next 5 years and will double for NGDC.

Based on general operating budgets for some na-tional data centers and funds spent for data collec-tion operations by the Federal agencies, it is esti-mated that funds for storage are less than 1 percentof the funds spent on data collection. Some esti-mate that this proportion should be in the rangeof 5 to 10 percent. In contrast, the geophysicalprospecting data industry commonly invests 10 to200 percent of the costs of collecting marine datain processing and archival ;25 the actual percentagevaries depending on the cost of data acquisition—about 200 percent in the Gulf of Mexico where costsare low and 10 percent in less accessible regionssuch as the Beaufort Sea. As a result of chronicallylow funding, national data centers have been ableto preserve only a small fraction of the collecteddata, and many important data sets have been lost.

Some fraction of this loss is likely due to the datacollector and primary user not planning for or con-sidering secondary use. But funding agencies mustalso bear some responsibility for ensuring that dataare properly preserved and maintained. An appro-priate amount of data management money shouldbe included in grants— and not at the expense offunding for the research that collects the data.

ZZL Brown, Nat iona] Science Foundation, pers. com. to RichardVetter, OTA contractor, Apr. 13, 1987.

Z3NODC funding: Fiscal year 1982 ($4.5 million), Fiscal year 1983

($4.6 million), Fiscal year 1984 ($4. 1 million), Fiscal year 1985 ($4.1million), Fiscal year 1986 ($3.8 million), Fiscal year 1987 ($3.6 million.

24 N’C,DC funding: Fisc~ Vear 1980 ($3.1 million), Fiscal yem j 981

($3. 1 million), Fiscal year 1982 ($3.1 million), Fiscal year 1983 ($3.0million), Fiscal year 1984 ($2.8 million), Fiscal year 1985 ($2. 7 mil-lion), Fiscal year 1986 ($2.6 million).

zjCar] SaY,it, western Geophysical Compan}r, pem. com. to Richard\’ettcr, OTA contractor, Nov. 25, 1986,


According to NGDC, “If funding agencies abdi-cate their responsibility for the processing of datato a stage usable by others and the long-term pres-ervation of the data, they have in fact created a bur-den for the scientific community and create the pos-sibility of non-productive and redundant collectionsof data. "26 When secondary usage is not planned

Z6M. S. Loughridge, “Frontiers in Data Storage, Retrieval, andDisplay, Proceedings of the Marine Geology and Geophysics DataWorkshop, Nov. 5-7, 1980 (Boulder, CO: National Geophysical andSolar-Terrestrial Data Center, 1980), p. 145.

for, it either takes large expenditures to “reconsti-tute’ the data, or the data never become availableto the secondary user.27

Z7A simple Iibrav function can prevent data duplication. NGDChas a data base called GEODAS (Geophysical DAta System) whichidentifies where data have been collected and by whom. The new useris then faced with copying and converting the data.

SURVEY AND CHARTING EFFORTS

NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS) and theUSGS Office of Energy and Marine Geology arethe civilian organizations with primary responsi-bilities related to acquisition and processing ofbathymetric and geologic data within the U.S.EEZ. While source data should be archived in anational database (NGDC), the evaluation of dataquality and processing of the data into maps andcharts, digital or analog, is a responsibility whichmust continue as a part of the NOS and USGS mis-sions. Effectively, NOS and USGS produce theFederal assessment of the best geographic depic-tion of these data. It is important that both agen-cies acquire the capability to establish and main-tain these data sets in digital form. Without suchefforts each individual user would have to judgedata quality and process a myriad of data sets whichwould be a costly endeavor.

In 1984, USGS and NOAA signed a Memoran-dum of Understanding28 to conduct joint mappingand survey efforts in the EEZ. Funds appropriatedto USGS and NOAA have been increasingly re-programmed to support this research over the last3 years. Total EEZ exploration funds in the Fed-eral agencies were $9 million in 1984, $12 millionin 1985, and about $16 million in 1986 (table 7-l).Eighty percent of the money for EEZ explorationis within USGS and NOAA budgets; the GLORIAand multi-beam survey programs consume virtu-ally all of this funding.

ZeCooperative program for bathymetric survey by NOAA andUSGS, signed by both J. Byrne and D. Peck, April 1984.

Table 7=1.-Funding for EEZ Programs

Fiscal year(million dollars)

Agency 1984 1985 1986Department of Commerce:

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 4.4 a 5.0

Department of the Interior;U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 5.1 8.4Minerals Management Service . . . 2.7 1.8 1.6Bureau of Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.2 1.2

Total funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 11.5 16.2aA seaBearn system wss purch~ed for an addhlonal $2 mllliOn.


USGS: The GLORIA Program

The USGS GLORIA mapping program is in-tended to provide a complete and broad overviewof the U.S. EEZ (see ch. 4). Currently, about 30percent of the EEZ29 has been surveyed withGLORIA. At the present rate, the entire U.S. EEZwill be covered by the end of 1996, The time lagbetween surveying and publication of maps is about1 ½ years. 30 USGS intends to distribute G L O R I Adata to the public through NGDC; however, nonehas yet been archived. All of the swath data are dig-ital and stored on magnetic tape. These data mustbe combined with navigational information to beof full value.

29 About one million square nauticai IIlih.

30T0 date, the EEZ off the west coast (California, Oregon, Wash-ington), in the Gulf of Mexico, and off Puerto Rico/U. S. Virgin Is-lands has been mapped. The West Coast Atlas was published in March1985 on the second anniversary of the EEZ declaration, The Gulf ofMexico Atlas will be published in August 1987.


Photo credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The NOAA ship Surveyor is equipped with the Sea Beam system for detailed bathymetric mapping of the EEZ.

USGS considers the GLORIA program a ‘ ‘show-case’ success and is committed to its completion.However, recent budget cuts will at least delay ifnot permanently inhibit the project. The Office ofEnergy and Marine Geology had a budget of $24million for marine geology in 1986. This is the to-tal EEZ expenditure within USGS, which includes$18 million for salaries and overhead. The entireoperating expenses budget of this office is spent onthe GLORIA survey (see table 7-l). Only modestfunds are expended on other activities, e.g., analyz-ing mineral contents of vibracores.31 All Geologi-cal Framework studies were discontinued in 1982,also because of budget constraints. USGS has a con-tract through 1991 with the British Institute of

spend percent analyzing mineral core samples. At this rate, the backlog of 1,000 coreswill take 10 to 15 years to complete; plans to procure more cores fromareas identified as economically promising based on this screen-ing have been discontinued due to lack of funds.

Oceanographic Sciences (IOS) which operates theGLORIA equipment. If USGS cannot meet theterms of the contract, a significant financial pen-alty will be imposed and USGS could lose theGLORIA system. Although the United States isdeveloping similar technologies, no system with theswath width of GLORIA will be available in theforeseeable future if the current system is returnedto IOS.

NOAA: The Bathymetric Mapping Program

The National Ocean Service of NOAA is pro-ducing very detailed bathymetric maps of the EEZusing multi-beam or swath echo-sounders in con-junction with precise navigational positioning (seech. 4). A bathymetric map can be constructedwithin 6 months of collecting multi-beam data, instriking contrast to the years needed to producemaps and charts manually. Individual field surveys


are typically processed in 3 weeks or less, providedno major system problems are encountered. Twomapping systems developed by the General Instru-ment Corp. are the Sea Beam system and theBathymetric Swath Survey System (BS3) usedaboard ships of the NOAA fleet. A more modernversion of BS3 called Hydrochart II is now avail-able from General Instrument. Japan has deployedthe first system. NOAA intends to use Hydrochart11 or its equivalent on the U.S. east coast and toupgrade BS3 to the same system. Swath data arenow classified (see the last section in this chapter).

NOAA has operated multi-beam survey shipssince the mid to late 1970s. The EEZ swath map-ping program began in 1984 and covered about 150square nautical miles. During 1985, about 1 ½ ship-years were logged covering about 6,400 square nau-tical miles. In 1986, approximately 2 ship-yearscompleted another 14,000 square miles. By the endof 1986, NOS had 3 ships in operation acquiringswath data, and about 1 percent of the total U.S.EEZ had been mapped. NOS staff estimate thatit will take about 143 ship-years to survey the en-tire EEZ and that about 150,000 reels of magnetictape will be required to store the entire set of origi-nal data. To date, about 6,000 magnetic tape reelsof swath data have been recorded and stored. Thestorage problem is significant though not insur-mountable. NOS is currently evaluating the pos-sibility of using optical disk technology for long-term storage of EEZ bathymetric data. NOAA in-tends to archive all original data as a source data-base for use by other researchers. NOS will proc-ess the data into two gridded data sets:

1.

2.

Both

Metric data in the UTM (Universal Trans-verse Mercator) projection to construct bathy-metric maps, andEnglish (feet or fathom) data in the Merca-tor projection to construct nautical charts.

gridded data sets will be processed into digitalgraphics for use in electronic chart systems and theconstruction of map and chart hard copy graphics.

In conjunction with the swath data, other ancil-lary data are collected by ships. These data include3.5 and 12 kilohertz underway bottom-profiling sys-tems and surface weather observations .32

Since 1980, the budgets for mapping, charting,and geodesy programs in NOAA have shrunk 10to 20 percent (unadjusted dollars). Ship supportfunds also have been reduced over this period. Cur-rently, EEZ multi-beam efforts represent about 10percent of the NOAA surveying and mapping activ-ities. Bathymetric surveys are not a line item in theNOAA budget; the level of effort increases at theexpense of traditional mapping and charting activ-ities.33 NOAA is increasing multi-beam survey ef-forts in 1987 to 418 sea-days at a cost of about $6.1million .34 35 Eventually, NOAA plans to apply sim-ilar technologies within nearshore regions using ex-perience gained with the offshore systems.

gtMore detai] on the NOS bathymetric mapping program may befound in the report of the December 1984 EEZ Bathymetric and Geo-physical Survey Workshop, NOAA, March 1985.

jjThree ships formerly assigned to charting now do mu]t i-beamsurveys.

g+ Estimated from cost of ship-days in 1984-86.35 Appropriated $1, 1 million for an additional multi-beam system.

OTHER DATA COLLECTION PROGRAMS

The National Oceanic and The National Ocean ServiceAtmospheric Administration

General Physical Oceanography Programs.—In addition to the extensive program of bathy- NOS is the major NOAA group systematically col-

metric mapping using multi-beam systems (de- lecting physical and geological data from the EEZ.scribed above), NOAA collects In addition to the relatively recent swath mappingNo AI”@+C@,C

9

‘P~\*V 70 and synthesizes biological, program, NOS collects and maintains tidal data$ ,.. ~~ chemical, and physical charac-

W

along the U.S. coastline. NOS has funded the de-<~ ~ teristics of the ocean environment. velopment of a state-of-the-art database manage-4z $ Through NESDIS, NOAA con- ment system for much of these data as part of itsc‘o C+*

Cfi trols the major data centers for ‘ ‘next-generation water level measurement sys-4’WNT @

co++

EEZ data (NGDC and NODC). tern. ” Insufficient funds have been provided to put

Ch. 7—Federal Programs for Collecting and Managing Oceanographic Data . 257

all of the old data into this system, and some oldstrip charts and hand tabulations continue to beused. NOS also maintains wave data, but there isnow no adequate archival system. Within the NOSOffice of Oceans and Atmospheric Research, theSea Grant Program and the two regional labora-tories 36 collect data as well. These efforts tend tobe more in the mode of exploratory short-term datacollection rather than multi-year systematic surveys.

The Strategic Assessment Branch.—The Stra-tegic Assessment Branch (SAB) of the NOAA Of-fice of Oceanography and Marine Assessment con-ducts comprehensive, interdisciplinary assessmentsof multiple resource uses for the EEZ to determinemarine resource development strategies which willbenefit the Nation and minimize environmentaldamage or conflicts among users .37

SAB is producing a series of four regional atlases(see figure 7-1) whose maps combine the physical,chemical, and biological characteristics of resourcesand their environments with their economic, envi-ronmental quality, and jurisdictional aspects. Thefour atlases cover:

● the U.S. East Coast;● the Gulf of Mexico;● the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort

Seas; and● the U.S. west coast and Gulf of Alaska.

The maps cover a range of topics on physical andbiological environments (geology, surface temper-atures, aquatic vegetation . . .), more than 300 spe-cies of living marine resources (invertebrates, fishes,birds, mammals . . .), economic activities (popu-lation distribution, seafood production . . .), envi-ronmental quality (release of oil and grease dis-charge, bacteria . . .), and jurisdictions (politicalboundaries, environmental quality managementareas . . .). In addition, each map is also in digitalform in a computer data system with supportingsoftware that provides the capability to preparecomposite maps for combinations of species, life his-tory, etc.

38 This capability may be used by visit-ing investigators.

J~The pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory and the AtlanticOceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory.

STC N E~er D ,J, Basta, T, F. I.aPointe, and M .A. Warren, ‘‘New,.Oceanic and Coastal Atlases Focus on Potential EEZ Conflicts, ”Oceans 29 (3), 1986, pp. 42-51.

SL7TWCI examp]e~ are shown in ch. 6, figures 3 and 4.

About 200 copies of the U.S. East Coast Atlasof 125 maps were published in 1980.39 The Gulfof Mexico Atlas (163 four-color maps) was printedin 1985; the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort SeasAtlas (127 maps) will be printed late in 1987. TheWest Coast and Gulf of Alaska Atlas is scheduledfor 1988 publication.

A ‘ ‘national” atlas of 20 maps on the health anduse of coastal waters of the United States is alsobeing produced. The first five maps published were:Ocean Disposal Sites, Estuarine Systems, Oil Pro-duction, Dredging Activities, and NOAA’s Na-tional Status and Trends Program. Future mapsare scheduled on hazardous waste sites, marinemammals, fisheries management areas and othersimilar topics.

Other SAB activities include an economic sur-vey of outdoor marine recreation, a national coastalpollutant discharge inventory, a national estuarineinventory, a national coastal wetlands database, anda shoreline characterization.

National Marine Fisheries Service

The work of the National Marine Fisheries Serv-ice (NMFS) is done by 5 regional offices, 4 fish-eries research centers, and 20 laboratories. TheNMFS mission is: 1) to carry out national and in-ternational conservation and management of liv-ing marine resources, 2) to encourage the utiliza-tion and development of U.S. domestic fisheriesand fisheries resources, and 3) to conduct bio-environmental and socioeconomic research. Workthat results in the production of EEZ oceanographicdata is largely carried out by the laboratories of thefour fisheries centers. Some NMFS data are madeavailable to and become part of the NODC ar-chives.

The NMFS has an automatic data processingTelecommunications Long-Range Plan, initiatedin 1981. Currently, there is active interaction be-tween the Seattle and Miami centers and amongthe North East Region laboratories. The Office ofManagement and Budget has approved funds toprovide for a major upgrade of the system duringfiscal years 1988 and 1989. Most of the “traffic”consists of data on catch efforts, socioeconomic fac-

sgNow out-of-print.


Figure 7-1.— Regional Atlases of the EEZ

our atlases prepared by the Strategic Assessment Branch of NOAA depict environmental, economic, and jurisdictional infor-mation useful for regional assessment of EEZ resources.

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospherlc Administration.


Underway Geophysics Collected in the EEZ

As the concentration of these ship tracks shows, a significant amount of geophysical information has been collectedin the EEZ; however, much more mapping, sampling, and resource assessment remains to be done.

Source: National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

tors, and administrative matters. NMFS biological-environmental data (i. e., oceanographic data) aremainly of regional interest and are shared withina region by more conventional means, such as di-rect exchange of “hard” or paper copy.

The National Geophysical Data Center

The mission of the National Geophysical DataCenter (NGDC) is “to acquire, process, archive,analyze and disseminate solid earth and marinegeophysical data . . .; to develop analytical, . . .and descriptive products; and to provide facilitiesfor World Data Center A. ’40 Its Marine Geologyand Geophysics Division (one of four divisions) cov-

Data System A was established as part of the Interna-tional Geophysical Year 1956-57 to foster data exchange between coun-tries. World Data System A coordinates information from ‘‘free’ worldcountries; World Data System B, from Soviet bloc countries.

ers most of the work of interest to the EEZ. Thearchives of this Division include some 10 milliontrack miles of marine geophysical data, about 25percent of which is in the U.S. EEZ. About halfof the requests for data come from private indus-try. The next largest requesting groups are acade-mia and the Federal Government.

Funding for NGDC activities has declinedslightly from fiscal year 1981 through fiscal year1987 while its archives and responsibilities havesteadily increased. Future projections suggest anincrease in data storage requirements of 600 per-cent (presuming only high-density magnetic tapesare used for storage) from fiscal years 1986 to 1992.

NGDC data are processed and made availableto a worldwide community of clients through seriesof ‘Data Announcements’ on topics ranging from


common depth point seismic reflection data for spe-cific regions of the U.S. continental shelf, to coredescriptions for special areas, to high-resolutionseismic reflection data, to magnetic and gravitydata, to the latest data sets from the deep sea drillingproject, to ice-gouge data. These announcementsprovide users with detailed information on the char-acteristics of the particular data set being offered,including related data sets, costs, and availableformats.

The Marine Geology and Geophysics Divisionhas two interactive systems for accessing worldwidemarine geophysical data and geological data in thesample holdings of the major U.S. core repositories.Using software developed by the Division, a usercan specify geographic area, type of geophysicalmeasurement, sediment/rock type, geologic age,etc., and receive inventory information at a com-puter terminal. First operational in June 1978, thesetwo systems are used primarily by Division person-nel, but there has been experimental use at remoteterminals by the staffs of Scripps Institution ofOceanography and other core repositories underdata exchange agreements with NGDC and otherFederal agencies. NGDC hopes to make three otherdata sets similarly accessible for users:

1. multi-beam echo-sounder data from NOS andother collecting institutions,

2. side-looking sonar data, and3. digital multi-channel seismic reflection data

if demand and funding warrant.

NGDC staff states that most users of Division datado not need “on-line”41 access; NGDC typicallysatisfies most inquiries by performing tailoredsearches of the data for the requestor.

Types of EEZ data held by NGDC are MarineGeological Data Bases, Bathymetry and MarineBoundary Data Bases, and Underway Geophysi-cal Data. In terms of numbers of reels of data storedand in rates of acquisition in bytes42 per year, theUnderway Geophysical Data sets dominate theNGDC inventory (97 percent). Most of the datasets are collected in digital form and stored on mag-netic tape.

+1 Interactive access to the data.4ZOne byte is the amount of computer memory used to store one

character of text.

Marine Geological Databases.—There are fourmajor categories in the geological databases: Ma-rine Core Curator’s (MCC), Marine Minerals(MM), Digital Grain Size (DGS), and Miscellane-ous

●

●

●

●

Geology Files (MGF).

All of the data sets are digital, aggregated, andstored on magnetic tape except for the MGF.The amount of MGF data stored is on 20 reelsof magnetic tape. The sum of the other cate-gories is about 14x106 bytes, half of which areDGS data. All sets combined are on 23 reelsof magnetic tape.The average delay between sampling and re-porting is 10 years for DGS and MGF dataand 2 and 5 years respectively for MCC andMM data. All four categories are provided onrequest.All data are acquired from academic or gov-ernment laboratories ranging from 90 percentacademic for MCC to 90 percent governmentfor DGS. The sum of the acquisition rates forMCC, MM, and DGS is about 140 kilobytesper year (100 kilobytes per year for GDS) withMGF acquiring about 1,000 stations per year.Future uses are expected to increase by about1 percent per year for MCC and GDS, 2 per-cent per year for MM, and 5 percent per yearfor MGF.

Problems Handling Geological Data.—Marinesediment and hard-rock analyses present uniquedata management challenges. Unlike bathymetry,for example, data volume presents no real obsta-cle to geological data storage and retrieval. Theproblem lies in the descriptive, free-form, non-standard nature of the data. There are nearly limit-less varieties of analyses performed on sediment andhard-rock samples, each analysis requiring suitabledocumentation to make the data usable. Decisionsmust be made as to which types of analyses meritcreation of a database and, for each type of dataselected, which analyses or measurements shouldbe stored. These decisions require input from themarine geological scientific community to be com-bined with data management practices to producedatabases that satisfy user requirements. The non-standard form of marine geological data also makescompilation of data very labor-intensive. Much ofthe data must be hand encoded from descriptivedata reports and other sources and entered into the


computer, in contrast to geophysical data which arecollected digitally in a relatively uniform manner.

Bathymetry and Marine Boundary Data-bases.—There are four kinds of data sets includedin this category: NOS Hydrographic Surveys(NOS/HS), NOS Multi-beam EEZ Bathymetry(NOS/MB), Gridded Global Bathymetry (GGB),and Marine Boundary (MB).

● The most valuable EEZ data sets in this groupare those from the National Ocean Service.All NOS hydrographic surveys that are avail-able in digital form are archived and mergedinto an accessible database at NGDC. All fourdata sets (except NOS/MB) are collecting data,are all in digital form, and all are unedited.NOS/MB data are aggregated, and NOS/HSdata are reformatted to be accessible by loca-tion. (The NOS/MB data are ‘‘on hold’ asa result of classification. ) All data sets are onmagnetic tape.

● The time lag for reporting NOS/HS data isabout 2 years. All but the NOS/MB data aremade available to others on request.

● The NOS/HS data are acquired at about 42megabytes per year from the NOS. GGB wasa one-time data acquisition from academic andDoD sources.

● Annual increases in uses for NOS/HS and MBdata are estimated at 5 percent and GGB at15 percent. (There is no EEZ multiple-beambathymetry on file at NGDC because of dataclassification, and no acquisition is planned.NGDC does plan to index the location of sur-vey tracklines so that operators of multi-beamsystems can avoid duplication. )

Problems with Bathymetric and BoundaryData. —Transmission of survey data between NOSand NGDC has been irregular over the years, pri-marily because the digital versions of surveys havenot been important to the nautical charting effortat NOS. Over the last 3 years, NGDC has madea consistent effort to obtain and catalog a largebacklog of surveys stored at NOS headquarters.Availability of other bathymetric data sets dependson DoD classification policies. Marine boundarydata are available, though they need to be central-ized to be readily accessible. NGDC has the U.S.EEZ boundary points (produced by NOS) and theouter continental shelf lease area boundary points

(produced by USGS). NOS is compiling and dis-tributing a detailed set of boundary points for theU.S. coast; these data have not been submitted toNGDC.

Underway Geophysical Data.—Four kinds ofunderway data are included in this category:Underway Marine Bathymetry (MB), UnderwayMarine Seismic Reflection (MSR), Underway Ma-rine Magnetics (UMM), and Underway MarineGravity.

●

●

●

●

About 25 percent of the Underway Geophysi-cal Data are taken in the EEZ. Data are in-creasing in all sets. Except for MSR, most ofthe data are in unaltered digital form storedon magnetic tape. The MSR data are 45 per-cent on paper, 40 percent on microfilm, and15 percent on magnetic tape. While 85 per-cent of the MSR data are analog, the MSRdigital archive alone totals about 3,000 reelsof low-density tape. The remaining 3 digitalsets total about 5 million records on 10 high-density reels, about half of which are MB.The average delay from sampling to report-ing for all sets is about 5 years, All data aremade available upon request.The combined rate of accumulation of data forall sets is about 100 megabytes per year.Future use for all sets is estimated to increaseat about 25 percent per year.

Problems and Successes with Underway Data.—An internationally accepted format for underwaygeophysical data is in general use. Flow of data toNGDC has been good from the Minerals Manage-ment Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Scripps In-stitution of Oceanography, Hawaii Institute of Ge-ophysics, Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory,and the University of Texas at Austin. Other insti-tutions’ performances in submitting data have beenspotty because they have not practiced centralizedlong-term data management. A considerable amountof data from some institutions has been lost or dis-persed in laboratories.

The National Oceanographic Data Center

The mission of the National Oceanographic DataCenter (NODC) is to acquire, archive, manage,and make oceanographic data available to second-ary users. NODC has served in this capacity since


Photo credit: W. Westermeyer

Marine analysts examine instrumentation aboardthe dredge Mermentau.

its formation in 1961 and probably now has theworld’s largest unclassified collection of oceano-graphic data.

About 95 percent of the EEZ data obtained arein digital form, the rest is in analog form. All ofthe data are stored on magnetic tape and compriseabout 650,000 stations, equivalent to about 135reels of magnetic tape or about 4 gigabytes. Thetime-lag from sampling to reporting ranges from1 to 5 years. The rate at which data are acquiredis about 650 megabytes per year, due mainly to in-puts from a few high data-rate devices such as cur-rent meters.

NODC has been pivotal in the development ofseveral data management activities that involve datathat is entirely, or at least mainly, taken in the EEZ:

Outer Continental Shelf Environmental As-sessment Program (OCSEAP).—OCSEAP is acomprehensive multi-disciplinary environmentalstudies program initiated by BLM to provide envi-ronmental information useful in formulatingAlaskan oil and gas leasing decisions. Starting froma modest $100,000 data collection program in 1975,OCSEAP had assembled by the end of 1984 over2,500 data sets covering more than 100,000 stationsand consisting of more than 4 megabytes. During

the early stages of this program, a great deal of ef-fort was devoted to the development of data for-mats and codes that would support the needs of in-vestigators and be compatible for preprocessing andconverting to digital form prior to submission toNODC.

National Marine Pollution Information Sys-tem (NMPIS).— NMPIS is essentially an annu-ally updated catalog of thousands of marinepollution-related projects carried out or supportedby dozens of Federal agencies. The catalog includestypes of projects, types of data and/or informationcovered, geographic distribution, quantity ofdata/information, means of access, costs, and prin-cipal contacts.

Marine Ecosystems Analysis (MESA) Proj-ect. —MESA is a cooperative program betweenNOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) to conduct baseline marine environmentalmeasurements primarily in the New York Bight,New York; and Puget Sound, Washington, areas.This program, which began in 1978 and completedits data collection phase by 1983, resulted in morethan 2,000 marine environmental data sets consist-ing of over 200,000 stations. NODC now holdsthese data in appropriate files in the Nationaldatabase.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve/Brine DisposalProgram. —This NOAA program began in 1977to provide assessment information to the Depart-ment of Energy (DOE) on environmental effectsof brine discharge into the Gulf of Mexico. Base-line marine environmental measurements frommonitoring efforts at discharge sites consisting ofover 87,000 stations have been archived by NODC.

California Cooperative Fisheries Investiga-tions (CALCOFI). —The CALCOFI program,largely supported by the State of California, makesoceanographic observations in conjunction withfisheries studies at a grid of stations in the Califor-nia Current region off the California coast. Begunin 1949, this program has produced physical/chem-ical oceanographic data consisting of more than 370data sets of over 16,500 stations which are now heldby NODC.

New Efforts Underway at NODC InvolvingEEZ Data. —A cooperative agreement has been

Ch. 7—Federal Programs for Collecting and Managing Oceanographic Data 263

signed between NOAA’s National Ocean Service(NOS) and NODC to develop an Alaska regionalmarine database in Anchorage, Alaska, at the Of-fice of Marine Assessment Ocean Assessment Di-vision. NODC and NOS are both providing co-pies of their data holdings in the Alaska EEZ regionand will provide routine updates every six months.Database maintenance will be done in Anchorage,and a full database copy will be available at theOcean Assessment Division there and at NODC.

Consideration is being given to creating LevelII satellite data sets for the EEZ at NODC. Whilemassive global satellite data archives are availablefrom the Satellite Data Services Division of the Na-tional Climatic Data Center, investigators requireeasier data access than is now possible. NODC ispresently archiving and distributing data from theU.S. Navy Geodetic Satellite which provide fullEEZ coverage as part of the satellite Exact RepeatMission.

Prototype Coastal Information System Usinga Personal Computer. —In 1986, NOAA devel-oped a prototype coastal information system for theHudson-Raritan Estuary. The system is designedfor use by regional planners, environmentalspecialists and managers, and citizen groups withaccess to an IBM compatible personal computer.Information is accessed by file directory, menu, andglossary and provides output as map sections andvertical profiles with a wide variety of propertiesranging from temperature through water depth.

Problems with NODC Data. —Data quality isa continuing concern for both NODC and research-ers using NODC data. To address this issue, a ser-ies of ‘Joint Institutes’ between NODC and vari-ous research laboratories has been initiated. Theseinstitutes are located on-site at the laboratories.Data are collected, pre-processed, and checked forquality by the program’s principal investigator(s)or their staff(s) before being provided to NODCfor archival. One such “Joint Institute” for sub-surface thermal data from the Tropical OceanGlobal Atmosphere Study (TOGA) program is nowoperating at the Scripps Institution of Oceanogra-phy, and others are planned, depending on re-sources, for other programs at the University of Ha-waii and the University of Delaware.

Another problem is the large number of organi-zations collecting marine environmental data invarying formats, employing various levels of qualitycontrol. This situation makes it both expensive anddifficult to manage resulting data to the satisfac-tion of an equally large user community. NODCdoes not have financial or staff resources to rou-tinely reformat and uniformly quality control everydata set received for archival.

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) car-ries out programs to implement the EEZ proclama-

tion through its Office of Strate-gic and International Minerals.The programs include: formulat-ing a mineral leasing programfor non-energy minerals; estab-lishing joint Federal-State taskforces in support of preparation

of lease sale EISs through cooperative agreements;providing support for data-gathering activities ofother Federal and State agencies and universities;and developing regulations for prospecting, leas-ing, and operations for Outer ContinentalShelf/EEZ minerals.

The MMS administers the provisions of theOuter Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)through regulations codified in Title 30 of the Codeof Federal Regulations. The regulations govern per-mitting, data collection and release, leasing, andpostlease operations in the outer continental shelf.The regulations prescribe:

●

●

when a permit or the filing of a notice requiresgeological and geophysical explorations to beconducted on the outer continental shelf; andoperating procedures for conducting explora-tion, requirements for disclosing data and in-formation, and conditions for reimbursing in-dustry for certain costs.

Prior to 1976, common depth point (CDP) seis-mic data were primarily acquired by the govern-ment through nonexclusive contracts or as a cost-sharing participant in group shoots. As the cost of


acquiring these data increased, the concept of ob-taining the data as a condition of permit was de-veloped. Starting in 1967, the MMS has reim-bursed industry permitters for reproduction costsof acquired CDP seismic data. Recent costs for suchdata have averaged about $600 per mile. The MMSnow holds about 1 million miles of such data, ofwhich about 260,000 miles was acquired before fis-cal year 1976 and could continue to be held as pro-prietary indefinitely. Data acquired after 1976 areheld as proprietary by the petroleum industry fora period of time. MMS is about to propose a ruleincreasing the hold on such geological data from10 to 20 years. Additionally, the agency is consid-ering prohibiting the release of any geophysical datauntil the new rule goes into effect .43 The effect ofthis new policy would be to shut off most industry-collected data from reaching the public for anotherdecade. Approximate amounts of CDP data re-maining in MMS archives for the years 1977through 1985 are shown in figure 7-2.

Ninety-five percent of the CDP data are collectedin digital form, with the remainder analog. Of the

WT. Holcomb, NOAA/NGDC, Apr. 24, 1987, and D. zinger,MMS Reston, Apr. 27, 1987, personal communications to OTA.

Figure 7-2.— MMS Seismic Data

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985Year

portion stored by MMS, 95 percent are stored onMylar film with the remainder on magnetic tape.Except as noted above, none of the data are avail-able to the general public. Industry is the sourceof all of the data and MMS expects future acquisi-tion rates to continue at about the same rate as thepast few years. These data are acquired as a con-dition of offshore geological and geophysical per-mits issued under the terms of the OCSLA. Thereare no problems obtaining the data, so long asMMS has the funds to reimburse the permittee forthe duplication costs. MMS also collects physicaloceanographic data, which accounts for about 25percent of the MMS Environmental Studies pro-gram. These data are obtained by MMS contrac-tors; MMS contracts now specify that data obtainedunder contract are to be provided in digital formto the NODC.

U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the dom-inant civilian Federal agency that collects marine

o

geological and geophysical data.++~~; **P+. USGS conducts regional-scaleQv+&*

2

*’*A investigations aimed at under-4’ \$’

*S3* standing and describing the gen-+~“G@* ● A eral geologic framework of the&

‘(%};A~ S● ()+ continental margins and evalu-ating energy and mineral re-

sources. About 60 percent of the EEZ data collectedare in digital form. The ‘ ‘raw’ field data are usu-ally stored for some lengthy period for possible di-rect access. About two-thirds of the data must bemerged (aggregated) with other data (usually navi-gation data) in order to be of value. The totalamount of EEZ data collected to date is stored onabout 50,000 reels of magnetic tape and is beingaccumulated now at about 200 reels per year. Thetime lag from collection to reporting is about threeyears for publication in a scientific journal andabout one year for a seminar or an abstract at ameeting.

Future acquisition of EEZ data is expected to in-crease approximately 10 percent per year, mainlybecause new equipment allows more informationto be collected per ship mile. In the past, all USGSdata were copied and sent to NGDC. This policycontinues except for digital seismic data; only sum-maries of these data are sent. NGDC then an-


nounces the availability of such data sets and, ifdemand warrants, the data are then sent to NGDC.

Bureau of Mines

While the Bureau of Mines (BOM) does not ac-tively collect and archive EEZ data, BOM is a

prime user of information col-lected by other groups. Programsrelated to the EEZ include de-velopment of technologies thatwill permit recovery of mineraldeposits from the ocean floor,studies of beneficiation and proc-

essing systems, economic analyses of mineral ex-traction, and assessment of worldwide availabilityof minerals essential to the economy and securityof the United States.

National Aeronautics andSpace Administration

The National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration (NASA) flies a number of satellites carry-

elevation. From these measurements, a-number ofimportant properties of the ocean can be estimated,including biological productivity, surface wind ve-locity, bottom topography, and ocean currents. Allof these satellites obtain some small but significantpercentage of their data while over the EEZ. Thebulk of the ocean program data archived by NASAis located at the National Space Science Data Cen-ter at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,Maryland, and at the NASA Ocean Data Systemcentered at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,California. Scientific analysis of the data is per-formed by researchers at the two laboratories andat universities around the country.

Both laboratories are currently collecting EEZ-related data. About 80 to 100 percent of the dataare digital with spatial scales of hundreds to thou-sands of yards and temporal scales of hours to days.Most of the data are stored in raw form on 27,000reels of high-density magnetic tape. The time lagbetween data sampling and reporting is betweenone and two years; these data are available to

others. NASA acquires data at the rate of about1012 to 1013 bytes per year, which is expected to in-crease significantly in the future.

NASA has developed pilot data management sys-tems that have successfully demonstrated conceptssuch as interactive access to data previewing andordering. These programs allow users to actuallyview the data available; the programs will not befully operational before the early 1990s.

The “NASA Science Internet” (NSI) programwas created in 1986 to coordinate and consolidatethe various discipline-oriented computer networksused by NASA to provide its scientists with easieraccess to data and computational resources and toassist their inter-disciplinary collaboration and com-munication. NSI is managed by the Information


Systems Office within NASA’s Office of Scienceand Applications. The Ames Research Center inSunnyvale, California, is responsible for technicalimplementation of NSI. NSI services include con-solidating circuit requests across NASA disciplines,maintaining a database of science requirements,disseminating information on network status andrelevant technology, and supporting the acquisi-tion of network hardware and software.

Science networks with the NSI system includethe Space Physics Analysis Network, the Astron-omy Network (Astronet), the network for the Pi-lot Land Data System, and the network plannedfor the earth science program. Currently, these net-works support approximately 150 sites accom-modating 2,000 scientists. Growth in use has been20 to 40 percent each year across all science dis-ciplines. NSI will coordinate links between NASAnetworks and networks of other agencies as well,such as NOAA, USGS, and NSF.

The West Coast Time Series project converts rawsatellite data to ocean chlorophyll concentrationsand sea surface temperatures (useful for studies ofbiological productivity and ocean circulation) in for-mats agreed to by the scientific user community,and provision has been made for efficient data dis-tribution.

Problems Handling NASA Data.—Users say itis difficult to obtain complete and timely responsesto requests for satellite data.44 This problem appearsto be due to lack of funds to develop and operateefficient data archival and distribution facilities forsecondary users.

It is currently impossible to get satellite data ar-chives to copy very large data sets—thousands oftapes— so the ‘ ‘archive’ is basically a warehouseof information with limited distribution capacity.

U.S. Navy

The U.S. Navy has a global marine data collec-tion program that is among the largest in the world.Data collection by the Navy is not necessarily fo-

ttThis problem Was mentioned by many other agencies and educa-tional institutions and is outlined in the 1982 NRC report Data Man-agement and Computation, Vol. 1.

cused in the U.S. EEZ; therefore it is difficult toestimate how much of the Navy’s data relate to theEEZ. The Navy’s marine data collection includesbathymetry, subsurface currents, seismic profiles,bottom samples, visibility, some water chemistryand biology, vertical profiles of physical properties(such as temperature, conductivity, and sound ve-locity), acoustic character, magnetics, gravity, andsome side-scan sonar and bottom photography.Most of the data are either classified or under con-trolled distribution to the Department of Defenseor its contractors.

Some data are collected, corrected, and filteredbefore being archived at the Naval OceanographicOffice; in most cases, the original/raw data are alsoretained. Analog data are stored in their originalform. Most of the data are stored on magnetic tape,some on floppy disks, and some on paper records.Some unclassified oceanographic data are forwardedto NODC, principally through the Master Oceano-graphic Observation Data Sets, and some unclas-sified geological/geophysical data, including unclas-sified bathymetric data, sediment thicknesses, andmagnetics are forwarded to NGDC. The Navy isa significant user of unclassified data obtained prin-cipally from NODC and from academic labora-tories working under Office of Naval Research con-tracts. Future use of data is expected to remain atabout the present level with no particular focus onthe EEZ.

Currently, the U.S. Geological Survey’s GLORIAdata are not subject to classification. NOAA multi-beam depth data, however, are sufficiently detailedthat they are now classified as confidential by agree-ment of the National Security Council, and theNavy has recommended that this classification beupgraded to secret. Although the NOS is continu-ing to collect multi-beam data, the NOS data arebeing treated as classified (see next section). No SeaBeam data are currently being forwarded to NGDCfrom any source, and thus no such data are releasedin response to requests from foreign countries.

The Navy’s Office of Naval Research supportsa set of unclassified basic research contracts (mainlywith academic institutions) that obtain data in theEEZ. Some of these are: Coastal Dynamics (to im-prove prediction of coastal ocean environmental


conditions), Coastal Transition Zone Oceanogra-phy (to advance understanding of upper ocean dy-namics in regions influenced by the proximity ofa coastal boundary), and Sediment TransportEvents on Shelves and Slopes (to understand theunderlying physics of and develop a new predic-tive capability for sediment erosion). Small amountsof unclassified Navy EEZ data are provided to theNOAA national data centers.

State and Local Governments

Most, if not all, coastal States are collecting and/or managing EEZ data. Though a major share oftheir needs is being met by national centers, mostmust obtain some data from other sources (indus-try, academic laboratories, and their own facilities).

To determine the amount and characteristics ofEEZ data being collected and/or managed bycoastal States, OTA sent questionnaires to the Stategeologists (members of the Association of Amer-icanteen

●

●

●

State Geologists) of the 23 coastal States. Six-replied. Analysis of the responses revealed that:

Roughly 75 percent of State data exist in ana-log form. Only one (the Oregon Departmentof Geology and Mineral Industries) collectsmost of their data in digital form. Approxi-mately 80 percent of the data are stored on pa-per only.The most usual time lag between sampling andreporting was 1 year, ranging from 1 monthto 3 years.Without exception, those who have data makeit available to others. Most of this activity isin response to individual requests.

Problems Handling State Data.—Even whereState digital data sets exist, transfer to other usershas been difficult because of lack of a standard for-mat. The greatest need expressed by the States isfor the establishment of a system to insure a regu-lar exchange of information and to encourage thecoordination of activities on local, regional, and na-tional levels.

Academic and Private Laboratories

The academic laboratories vary widely in size,scope, and sophistication. They range from the 10major oceanographic institutions which are mem-

bers of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions45 tothe hundreds of smaller coastal and estuarine lab-oratories. Many of them maintain their own dataarchives. Those undertaking research sponsored bythe NSF Division of Ocean Sciences and and/orlocated near the five NODC liaison offices (atWoods Hole, Massachusetts; Miami, Florida; LaJolla, California; Seattle, Washington; and Anchor-age, Alaska) routinely provide their data to NODCand/or NGDC. About 20 percent of NODC's pres-ent archive has come from the academic and pri-vate laboratories and recently the annual percent-age acquired from them is even greater—42 percentin 1985 and 35 percent in 1986. NODC staff creditthe National Science Foundation’s Ocean SciencesDivision’s ocean data policy as a contributing causeto this increase.

Academic and private laboratories respond to the‘ ‘market place ‘‘ in their handling of unclassifiedoceanographic data. Thus, the solution to datamanagement problems lies with those who controlthe market, mainly the Federal agency sponsors ofacademic research. Effective processing of data col-lected on academic ships may depend on inclusionof funds in the research project specifically for thepurpose of data reduction. In NSF, the Divisionof Ocean Sciences budgets for this activity, but theDivision of Polar Programs does not.

Some of the smaller laboratories have minimalinvolvement in either using or producing EEZ data.Networks for regional data exchange would helpto alleviate this barrier.

Industry

Private industry has been a relatively minorsource of data for the national archives, amount-ing to only 4 percent of the total NODC data. How-ever the present annual percentage for NODC in-creased abruptly to 6 percent in 1985 and then to14 percent in 1986. NODC staff attributes this in-crease to recent practices by some governmentagencies contracting for oceanographic survey work(e.g., MMS) to specify that unclassified data beprovided to data centers.

4~SCrippS institution of Oceanography, Woods Hole OCeanOgrwhlCinstitution, University of Washington, University of Miami, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Texas A&M University, Univer-sity of Rhode island, Oregon State University, Hawaii Institute ofGeophysics, and the University of Texas.


OTA surveyed 10 industrial organizations (pri-marily geophysical firms) actively collecting and/orutilizing EEZ data, with these results:

●

●

●

About 75 percent of the companies contactedcollect all or part of the EEZ data that theyuse, and almost all of the data are digital.Predominately, the stored data are unalteredand on magnetic tape.One major geophysical prospecting companyfar outstripped the combined total of storeddata by all other companies—1014 bytes—amounting to a total of about 2 million reelsof magnetic tape. The other companies rangedfrom a few reporting hundreds of reels of mag-netic tape to the remainder utilizing only a fewtens of reels.Most of the companies make their data avail-able only through purchase. A few reportedproviding data to national data centers, espe-cially those collecting data for a Federal agencyunder contract.

● Estimates of future increase or decrease of usewere highly variable and were indicated as be-ing sensitive to future economic conditions,particularly in terms of variability of costs ofEEZ resources (e. g., oil).

Problems Handling Industry Data.—Govern-ment agencies frequently replicate data that privatecompanies have ‘‘in-house. Such duplication ofefforts is extremely costly. Some industry spokes-persons believe that Federal survey programs areunfairly competitive with industry surveys. On theother hand, private industry often retains detailsrelated to their surveys as proprietary information.Federal access to details creates an awkward situa-tion in that once survey data are in Federal hands,they can be accessed by others through the Free-dom of Information Act. A centralized index of in-dustry surveys similar to the NGDC GEODAS(Geophysical DAta System) system is needed soresearchers will know what private sector data ex-ist, thereby avoiding potential duplication.

CLASSIFICATION OF BATHYMETRIC AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA

Multi-beam mapping systems, e.g., Sea Beamand the Bathymetric Swath Survey System—BS3,can produce bathymetric maps of the seabed manytimes more detailed than single beam echo sound-ing systems (figure 7-3, for example). This new gen-eration of seabed contour maps approaches—andsometimes exceeds—the accuracy and detail of landmaps and provides oceanographers a picture of thedeep ocean floor not available a scant decade ago.Prior to 1979, before the first NOAA research vesselSurveyor was equipped with Sea Beam, the U.S.oceanographic community only had available low-resolution bathymetric maps that were suitable fornavigation and general purposes but lacked the de-tail and precision needed for science.

Some marine geologists and geophysicists con-sider the development of multi-beam mapping sys-tems to be their profession’s equivalent of the in-vention of the particle accelerator to a physicist orthe electron microscope to a biologist. Now that thetechnological threshold for sensing the intricate de-tails of the landforms beneath thousands of feet ofocean water has been overcome, oceanographersbelieve that tremendous strides can be made in ex-

ploring the seabed and understanding the processesoccurring at great ocean depths.

The convergence of two advanced technologies—multi-beam echo sounders and very accuratenavigational systems—provides the basis for ex-tremely detailed maps of the seabed that are spa-tially accurate in longitudinal and latitudinal posi-tion on the earth’s surface as well as precise in de-termining the depth and landforms of the underseaterrain. Multi-beam systems, when used in con-junction with the satellite-based Global Position-ing System, can produce charts from which eithersurface craft equipped with the same shipboard in-struments or submarines with inertial navigationand sonar systems can navigate and accurately po-sition themselves. 46 If geophysical information, e.g.,

gravity and magnetic data, is superimposed overthe mapped region, its value for positioning andnavigation is further enhanced. A 1987 workshopof Federal, private, and academic representatives

+bR. Tyce, J, M il]er, R. Edwards, and A. Silver, ‘‘Deep OCean

Pathfinding-High Resolution Mapping and Navigation, ” Proceed-ings of the Oceans ’86 Conference (Washington, DC: Marine Tech-nology Society, 1986), pp. 163-168.

Ch. 7–Federal Programs for Collecting and Managing Oceanographic Data 269

Figure 7-3.—Map of the Surveyor Seamount Straddling the Juan de Fuca Ridge ProducedWith Sea Beam Bathymetry

Two halves ofSurveyor Seamount

The contours depict water depth in meters. The split in the mountain was caused by seafloor spreading. This map showsonly 2 percent of the data (about 400,000 data points) obtained by Sea Beam. The detailed features obtained with SeaBeam encouraged scientists to study this area more closely; evidence of recent volcanism has unexpectedly been found.Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

concluded that NOAA should acquire geophysicaldata that would not hinder the timely acquisitionof the bathymetric data.47 Classification stymiedNOAA’s effort to form a cooperative arrangementwith industry and academia. Thus, to date, NOAAhas not acquired gravity or magnetic data.

While the capability to identify subsurface ter-rain features and accurately determine their posi-tion is a boon to scientists seeking to locate and ex-plore geological features on the seafloor, it presentsa potentially serious security risk if used by hostileforces. Because of the security implications, theU.S. Navy, with the concurrence of the NationalSecurity Council’s National Operations SecurityAdvisory Committee, initiated actions to classifymulti-beam data and restrict its use and distri-bution.

OTA Workshop on Data Classification was held Jan. 27,1987, at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, under the auspices ofthe Marine Policy and Ocean Management Center.

Modern undersea warfare requires that sub-marines, once submerged, remain submerged toavoid detection. When submarines operate globally,this long-term submergence presents significantnavigational problems. Inertial guidance systemsand other navigational gear must be occasionallyupdated with precise locational information if thesubmarine’s position is to be determined accurately.One means for doing this is by fixing terrain fea-tures on tie ocean bottom and triangulating withinthem to determine the vessel’s position. Withdetailed’ bathymetric maps and precise geodesy,modern acoustical detectors and onboard computersare capable of precisely fixing a submarine’s posi-tion without having to surface and risk detection.Little imagination is needed to understand the secu-rity implications of high-resolution bathymetry.Bathymetric data may also affect other aspects ofundersea warfare, including acoustical propagationand mine warfare countermeasures.

In 1984, NOAA centered its bathymetric datacollection in the NOAA ships Surveyor (equipped


with a Sea Beam system) and the Davidson (equippedwith BS3) and announced long-range plans to sys-tematically map the U.S. EEZ. NOAA’s plans forcomprehensively mapping the EEZ at a high reso-lution—depth contours of 10-20 meters, and geo-detic precision of 50-100 meters—have been chal-lenged by the Navy, and the two agencies havesince entered into protracted negotiations in searchof a workable solution, but in the summer of 1987significant problems remained unresolved .48

Marine scientists and private commercial inter-ests are concerned that the Navy may classifyNOAA bathymetric and geophysical data. When-ever data classification is at issue, the reasons forthe security restrictions themselves are consideredsensitive, thus opportunities are limited for publicreview of the need and extent of restrictions or forconsultation to identify possible compromises to bal-ance security risks and scientific needs. In general,both the oceanographic community and private in-dustry have not been involved in the negotiationsbetween NOAA and the Navy to the degree thatthe non-government interests believe they shouldbe, given their stake in the outcome of the classifi-cation decision. Even some scientists within NOAAfeel alienated from the process.

Earlier Reviews of Data Classification

In 1985, the Director of the White House Of-fice of Science and Technology Policy requestedthat the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) re-view the National Security Council’s position thatpublic availability of broad-coverage, high-resolu-tion bathymetric and geophysical maps of the EEZwould pose a threat to national security; NAS wasasked to explore plausible means to balance nationalsecurity concerns with the needs of the academicand industrial communities. In the course of itsstudy, the NAS Naval Studies Board found it im-possible to “quantify” national security benefitsgained from classification or the possible benefitsthat could be realized by the U.S. scientific and in-dustrial users if such data were to be freely avail-able to the public.

4sLetter from Anthony J. Calio, Administrator, NOAA, to RearAdmiral John R. Seesholtz, Oceanographer of the Navy, Feb. 3, 1986;and reply from Seesholtz to Calio, Mar. 14, 1986. An extensive ex-change of correspondence followed between Calio and Seesholtzthrough Nov. 6, 1986.

Because of the difficulty it encountered in evalu-ating the benefits and risks associated with classify-ing bathymetric and geophysical data, the NavalStudies Board restricted its inquiry to whether theunrestricted release of accurately positioned, high-resolution bathymetric data could result in any newand significant tactical or strategic military threats.It did not assess the needs of the oceanographic andgeophysical research community for the data, nordid it assess the ocean mining industry’s need forsuch surveys. The Naval Studies Board concludedthat “map matching, i.e., locating one’s positionby matching identifiable features on the seafloorby using precise bathymetry from broad regionalcoverage, could afford potentially hostile forces aunique and valuable tool for positioning subma-rines within the U.S. EEZ.

While the Naval Studies Board supported theNavy’s position with regard to classifying and con-trolling ‘‘processed’ survey data, it did not favorclassifying raw data until they are processed intoa form that provides full geodetic precision andlarge area coverage. As a further measure, theBoard suggested that each processed map be re-viewed for distinctive navigational features thatwould make it valuable for precise positioning andthat the sensitive data be ‘‘filtered’ as necessaryto permit its use in unclassified maps. The Boardfurther recommended that the sensitive data bemade available on a classified basis to authorizedusers and that raw data covering a limited area bereleased without security restrictions for the pur-suit of legitimate research .49

A second review of the Navy’s data classifica-tion policy regarding multi-beam data was also un-dertaken by the National Advisory Committee onOceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) at the requestof NOAA in 1985. NACOA generally supportedthe Naval Studies Board’s conclusions, and foundthe national security argument for classifying high-resolution bathymetric data made by the Navymore ‘‘compelling’ than the counterargumentmade by the academic community for free exchangeof scientific information. 50 NACOA therefore rec-

49Nav~ StudleS Board, IVationa) Secun”ty lmpkations of U.S. Ex-clusive Economic Zone Survey Data, (Washington, DC: National Re-search Council, Mar. 25, 1985), p. 6.

JONation~ Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere,NACOA Statement on the Classification of Multibeam BathymetricData (Washington, DC: National Advisory Committee on Oceansand Atmosphere, Jan. 17, 1986), p. 4.


ommended that only ‘ ‘controlled selective dissem-ination’ of NOAA’s multi-beam data be allowed.

Analyzing the two public reports of the NavalStudies Board and NACOA, OTA found that nei-ther group, in reaching its conclusions, appears tohave fully weighed the risks, costs, and implicationsof withholding most high-quality bathymetric mapsfrom the academic community and the private sec-tor. Furthermore, neither report seems to acknowl-edge the extent that multi-beam technology hasproliferated throughout the world among the aca-demic, commercial, and government entities ofboth friendly and potentially hostile nations. Asmulti-beam survey data becomes more widely avail-able, secure navigation is possible without NOAAdata. Many foreign countries, including the SovietUnion, are now operating multi-beam survey sys-tems. Additionally, there has been no restrictionplaced on data produced by U.S. academic researchvessels operating Sea Beam systems. Finally, nei-ther report discusses the possible inconsistency be-tween the restricted use of broad-coverage, high-resolution bathymetry by U.S. scientists and theprivate sector and the U.S. position regarding in-ternational principles of freedom of access for sci-entific purposes in other nations’ EEZs and foreignscientists’ access to the U.S. EEZ.

NOAA’s Survey Plans—Navy ’s Response

After the release of the Naval Studies Board andNACOA reports in March 1986 and June 1986 re-spectively, the positions of NOAA and the Navyon multi-beam classification diverged rather thanconverged toward a solution. In response to theNavy’s opposition to allowing NOAA to proceedwith comprehensive unclassified multi-beam cov-erage of the EEZ that might serve as an atlas ofthe seabed, NOAA proposed to abandon its com-prehensive long-range plan and substitute a seriesof smaller-scale targets for multi-beam surveys.These smaller-scale targets included:

●

●

●

specific sites in water depths greater than 200meters;continuous coverage surveys in limited areasof concern, e.g. ,in estuarine areas and fornavigational safety in depths of 200 meters orless;widely-spaced reconnaissance swaths over theextent of a seabed feature;

● detailed investigation of areas up to 20 nauti-cal miles square; and

. international waters outside the U.S. EEZ con-sistent with international law in a manner sim-ilar to multi-beam surveys made by the do-mestic and foreign academic fleets .51

The Navy formed a working group to a d d r e s sNOAA’s proposal. The working group concludedthat:

1,

2.

3.

4.

5.

Surveys in waters shallower than 200 metersalong the U.S. coastline are particularly sen-sitive and should be restricted and classified.Bathymetric data on survey sheets that allowspositions to be fixed to less than one-quarternautical mile should be classified secret; there-fore, based on tests showing that a significantproportion of NOAA’s multi-beam surveysfall into this category, the Navy proposed thatall multi-beam data be collected, processed,and held at the secret classification.Navigation and bathymetric data either mustbe shipped separately to secure onshore facil-ities, or if combined (which NOAA does t omaintain quality control), it must be handledunder secret classification.Areas outside the U.S. EEZ that NOAA pro-poses to survey may still be sensitive since theycould pose a threat to allies and thereforeshould come within the classification scheme.Small “postage stamp” (20 by 20 nauticalmiles) surveys also should be considered classi-fied. The Navy did allow that accurate and re-liable unclassified nautical charts with appro-priate contour spacing can be produced fromthe classified database to support NOAA’snautical charting mission. 52

The Navy is continuing to work on filtering tech-niques that would distort (degrade) the shape and/orthe location of seabed features. Distortion wouldreduce the usefulness of a survey sheet for vesselpositioning but would allow NOAA to distr ibutesurvey sheets in unclassified form to all users. Ef-forts to date have not produced a filter that c a n

s I Letter from Anthony J. Calio, Administrator, National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, to Rear Admiral John R. Seesholtz,Oceanographer of the Navy, Feb. 3, 1986.

sZLetter from Rear Admiral John R. Seesholtz, Oceanographer ofthe Navy, to Anthony J. Calio, Administrator, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, Oct. 6, 1986.


satisfy both the security demands and positional cri-teria established by the Navy while still providingoceanographers and the private sector with suffi-ciently detailed information to be useful. Theprospects of developing a mutually acceptable fil-ter seem remote.

OTA Classification Workshop

In collaboration with the Marine Policy andOcean Management Center of the Woods HoleOceanographic Institution, OTA convened a work-shop in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, in January1987. Academic and government oceanographersand industry representatives who attended delvedfurther into the impacts and dislocations that dataclassification might impose on user groups. Work-shop participants were asked to:

● focus on the costs and risks of classification toscientific and commercial interests,

● relate the loss of information and/or commer-

cial opportunities in the EEZ to the economicand scientific position of the United States,

. consider the consequences of data classifica-tion on U.S. foreign policy related to the needfor access to other Nations’ EEZs for oceano-graphic research, and

● identify factors that could affect the operationalintegrity of a Navy classification system.

Costs and Risks to Scientific andCommercial Interests

Marine geologists and geophysicists believe thatit is impossible to evaluate what the loss might beto the U.S. oceanographic community as a resultof classifying multi-beam data until a sufficientlylarge area is surveyed and mapped to discover whatscientifically interesting features might be detectedas a result of high-resolution bathymetry. The rela-tively small sampling that has been made availableto date receives high praise from the academiccommunity and government oceanographers whoanticipate significant breakthroughs in understand-ing the conformation of the seabed if general-cov-erage multi-beam data are made available from theEEZ.

To advance oceanographic science, some scien-tists believe that they must be able to detect andcharacterize individual geological seafloor features

with dimensions as small as 100 meters. Only multi-beam mapping systems provide sufficient resolu-tion to achieve that goal in waters exceeding 200meters in depth, although optical systems and side-scanning sonar can provide useful informationabout such features. Should broad-coverage, high-resolution bathymetric surveys and geophysical databe either abandoned or excessively restricted, ge-ologists and geophysicists are concerned that theywould be denied fundamental information impor-tant to their professions, according to those attend-ing the OTA workshop.

Both NOAA’s and the National Science Foun-dation’s (NSF) charters require them to share andpublicly disseminate scientific data among non-governmental users. Oceanographic data collectedunder the aegis of NSF’s Division of Ocean Sci-ences is required to be made public after two yearsthrough a ‘‘national repository, e.g., the NationalGeophysical Data Center (NGDC). As a conse-quence of classification of multi-beam data, thereis a possibility that neither NOAA nor NSF wouldsupport or undertake large-scale seabed mappingefforts. NOAA has reserved the option of terminat-ing all multi-beam surveys if it is not permitted toconduct unclassified surveys in the U.S. EEZ andelsewhere. 53 Should NOAA forsake broad cover-age multi-beam surveys worldwide, the Navy it-self would likely lose a valuable source of strategicand tactical bathymetric data from both the U.S.EEZ and elsewhere that could strengthen the U.S.fleets’ operational position.

One anticipated indirect long-term impact thatcould result from restrictions on the collection, proc-essing, and dissemination of multi-beam bathymet-ric data is a move away from academic emphasison marine geology and a slowdown in progress inunderstanding the seafloor and geological processes.Ocean mining interests foresee setbacks in exten-sive mineral surveying within the U.S. EEZ ifNOAA is restricted in its unclassified mapping pro-gram. Some industry representatives believe thatseabed mining holds a special position of nationalimportance, and, therefore, even if classificationprocedures were imposed, ocean miners should begiven access to the classified, “undegraded,” high-resolution bathymetric data. Yet, while Federal

53 Ibid.


agencies with properly cleared personnel will haveaccess to the multi-beam data, it is uncertainwhether or not private firms can have similar ac-cess. Some firms can handle classified data, butothers cannot. Firms that can access such datawould have a significant advantage in the bid proc-ess. It remains to be seen as to whether or not in-dustry will tolerate such a disparity.

Since the NOAA mapping program is currentlythe only one affected by the threat of classification,it remains possible for individuals to contract withdomestic and foreign firms to conduct multi-beamsurveys in the U.S. EEZ. International law doesnot preclude the conduct of such surveys within theEEZ. Permission is required only when surveys fallwithin the Territorial Sea. A West German sur-vey ship has already conducted surveys within theU.S. EEZ in cooperation with U.S. industry.Broad-coverage bathymetric surveys would be ex-pensive, and, given the many other uncertaintiesfacing the domestic ocean mining industry, e.g.,unstable minerals markets, high cost of capital, andregulatory uncertainties, it is unlikely that miningventures would commit the necessary funds to con-tract for such reconnaissance multi-beam surveys,thus reducing the likelihood that mine sites wouldbe developed successfully. Security restrictions onmulti-beam data will affect a number of otherundersea activities as well, e.g., submersible oper-ations, modelling, identification of geological haz-ards, cable and pipe routing, fishing, etc.

Through July of 1987, there were no classifica-tion restrictions placed on multi-beam bathymetrycollected and processed by the academic fleet. How-ever, the Navy has given no assurances that aca-demic data will not be classified in the future. Withthe exception of surveys made of the AleutianTrench in the Pacific Ocean and Baltimore/Wil-mington Canyons in the Atlantic Ocean, seldomdo academic vessels undertake broad bathymetriccoverage; rather, they tend to concentrate onsmaller specific units of the seafloor. Most of thesurveys made by the academic fleet have been madeoutside the U.S. EEZ. On the other hand, if fundswere made available, it may be possible to mounta cooperative broad-scale mapping effort among atleast three world-class oceanographic research ves-sels in the U.S. academic fleet that are equipped

with multi-beam systems to provide high-qualitydata with atlas coverage.54

Impacts on U.S. Economic andScientific Position

Commercial interests represented at the OTAworkshop in Woods Hole suggested that restrictiveclassification procedures could chill the developmentof new echo sounding technology, since domesticcivilian markets for such instruments would prob-ably disappear. Should this situation arise, foreigninstrument manufacturers are likely to displaceU.S. firms in international markets, and the pre-dominance established by the United States in the1950s and 1960s would give way, with the leadingedge of acoustical sounding technology (much ofwhich was sponsored by the Department of De-fense) being transferred overseas. To some extent,this has already happened. There is also a risk thatas other nations allow unclassified multi-beambathymetric maps to be produced within their EEZ,U.S. ocean mining firms, most of which are multi-national, might find it advantageous to locate min-ing ventures in foreign economic zones and aban-don efforts in the U.S. EEZ. At a minimum,classification may drive U.S. firms into multina-tional agreements in order to acquire needed datawithin the U.S. EEZ.

International scientific competition is fierce. Thisfact is seldom fully appreciated by those unfamiliarwith the science establishment. Oceanographers at-tending the OTA Woods Hole workshop were uni-form in their belief that U.S. marine geologists andgeophysicists would be put at a disadvantage withtheir foreign colleagues who may not be limited bydata classification. This might tend to lure U.S.researchers to focus their efforts elsewhere in theworld where there are fewer constraints on the useand exchange of multi-beam and geophysical data,thus depriving the United States of the benefit ofresearch within its own EEZ.

There was general agreement at the OTA WoodsHole workshop that, if faced with the alternative

s+ The research vessel Thomas Washin~on operated by Scripps In-stitution of Oceanography and the research vessels Robert Conradand Atlantis 11 operated by Lament-Doherty Geological Observatoryand Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution respectively.

Ch. 7—Federal Programs for Collecting and Managing Oceanographic Data 275

of having high-resolution multi-beam data that hasbeen “degraded” or “distorted” by filters and al-gorithms, the oceanographic community would pre-fer to continue using the best “undoctored, ” un-classified data available even if it were of lowerresolution. If the choice of having high-resolutionmulti-beam bathymetric data over a small area isweighed against broad coverage with filtered data,most oceanographers prefer limited coverage andhigh-resolution.

Foreign Policy Implications ofData Classification

In proclaiming the establishment of the U.S. Ex-clusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in 1983, PresidentRonald Reagan carefully specified that the newlyestablished ocean zone would be available to all forthe purpose of conducting marine scientific re-search. 55 The President’s statement reaffirms along-held principle of the United States that it main-tained throughout the negotiations of the Law ofthe Sea Convention (LOSC): notwithstanding otherjuridical considerations, nations should be free topursue scientific inquiry throughout the ocean.

Although signatories to the LOSC granted thecoastal states the exclusive right to regulate, author-ize, and conduct marine research in their exclusiveeconomic zones, the United States—a non-signa-tory to the LOSC—continues to support and ad-vocate freedom of scientific access. 56 Thus, althoughother nations may impose consent requirements onscientists entering their EEZs if they view such sur-veys as counter to their national interest, the UnitedStates has no such restrictions.

While oceanographers are generally pleased withthe U.S. open door policy for scientific research inthe EEZ, those attending the OTA Woods Holeworkshop see potential problems if the Navy estab-lishes precedence for classifying high-resolutionbathymetric maps for national security reasons. Ifthe Navy continues to prevail in its position on thesensitivity of multi-beam data, then the UnitedStates might find it necessary to prohibit or con-trol the acquisition and processing of similar databy foreign scientists. Such action would, for prac-

ssst~t~~c~t by the president accompanying the proclamation estab-

lishing the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, Mar. 10, 1983, p. 2.Scunited Nations Law of the Sea, Part XIII, Sec. 3, Art. 246.

tical purposes, repudiate the President’s announcedpolicy of free access to the EEZ for scientific re-search.

Should multi-beam bathymetry in the U.S. EEZbe classified, many oceanographers believe thatother countries would follow suit or retaliate againstU.S. scientists by placing similar restrictions on thecollection and processing of data within their EEZs.To date, no foreign multi-beam data has been sub-mitted to NGDC. Other countries are waiting tosee how the security issue is resolved within theU.S. The consequences for marine geological andgeophysical research on a global scale could be se-vere as a result of removing a significant portionof the world’s seafloor from investigation. The with-drawn areas would include much of the continen-tal margins that are scientifically interesting andmay also contain significant mineral resources.

Will Classification Achieve Security?

Although the National Security Council and theNavy may effectively derail NOAA’s plans for com-prehensive coverage of the U.S. EEZ by high-resolution multi-beam mapping systems, the actionin no way assures that such data can not be ob-tained by a potential hostile through other means.Broad-coverage multi-beam data could be collectedand processed by non-government sources, and ac-curate, unclassified bathymetry could be acquiredfor strategic and tactical purposes. It is also possi-ble that foreign interests could gather such data andinformation either covertly under the guise of ma-rine science or straightforwardly in the EEZ un-der the U.S. policies related to freedom of accessfor peaceful purposes—although the latter approachmight prove politically difficult.

The Navy, on the other hand, considers that anyaction it may take to gather bathymetric informa-tion using its own ships is by definition not con-ducting marine scientific research, but conducting‘‘military surveys for operational purposes’ whichare therefore not subject to coastal State jurisdic-tion as are civilian scientific vessels gathering thesame kind of information.

57 Because the Navy con-

57(’Navy Oceanography: Priorities, Activities and Challenges, ”speech presented by Rear Admiral John R. Seeshohz, Oceanogra-pher of the Navy, Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University ofVirginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, Oct. 24, 1986.

— —


siders its operations using multi-beam bathymet-ric systems to be “hydrographic surveying” ratherthan scientific research, it remains possible for otherforeign navies to make the same claim to gain ac-cess to the U.S. EEZ for similar purposes.

Over 15 vessels are known to be equipped withmulti-beam mapping systems worldwide, not in-cluding those of NOAA and the Navy. Multi-beammapping systems, while expensive to purchase andoperate, are not a technology unique or controlledby the United States. Multi-beam technology isshared by France, Japan, United Kingdom, Aus-tralia, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, Aus-tralia, Norway and the Soviet Union. (Canada isnow in the process of purchasing a system. ) Whileseveral multi-beam systems were purchased fromU.S. manufacturers, other countries, e.g., FederalRepublic of Germany (two companies), Finland,and Norway, developed their own systems.

Multi-beam technology is not new. The first SeaBeam unit outside a U.S. Navy vessel was installedon an Australian naval vessel the HMS Cook, in1976 and the second on the French vessel JeanCharcot in 1977. The technology is over 20 yearsold. While oceanographers are reluctant to considerSea Beam as “obsolete” or “outmoded, ” theynote, 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 Braziland Korea for security reasons, but comparableecho sounding equipment is available from foreignsources. U.S. restrictions on the export of multi-beam systems put U.S. equipment manufacturersat a disadvantage. Since foreign multi-beam man-ufacturers exist, current U.S. policy on technologytransfer does not effectively limit the availabilityof these systems to foreign purchasers. Foreignfirms have interpreted U.S. policy to mean thatthey are not restricted from collecting multi-beamdata in the U.S. EEZ. Moreover, operating onlywithin the domestic market, U.S. manufacturersfind 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-resolutionbathymetric data; and perhaps to recover geophysi-

cal data as well. It is apparent that restricting andcontrolling the acquisition and dissemination ofhigh-quality bathymetric data will become more dif-ficult in the future as its commercial value increases.Just as geophysical surveying firms have beenformed to respond to the offshore petroleum indus-try’s need for seismic survey data, so too maybathymetric survey firms respond to an increaseddemand for multi-beam data. New survey systemsthat combine wide swath bathymetric measure-ments with side-scan sonar imagery, e, g.,SeaMARC, are also available in the commercialfleet.

Some oceanographers believe that a large amountof unclassified bathymetric data and charts of suffi-cient precision and accuracy to be used for strate-gic and tactical purposes are already in the publicdomain and that much of it may have to be classi-fied if subjected to the Navy’s positioning tests. Forexample, many of NOAA’s single-beam surveysthat are run with precise electronic control and closeline spacing for charting coastal areas and harborapproaches 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 forsale. A potential adversary would only need selecteddata sets to complicate a warfare situation.

The current move to classify bathymetric datais not the first time data restrictions have been im-posed on the oceanographic community. From theend of World War II in 1945 to well into the 1960s,some bathymetric data collected in deep ocean areasby the single-beam systems were also classified. Onedifference between now and then is that earlier sur-veys were either made by Navy vessels or procuredby Navy contract; there was no drain on civilianresearch and survey budgets, hence little proprie-tary claim for access to the data could be made bycivilian interests.

Observations and Alternatives

Dealing from its position of power regardingsecurity matters, the Department of Defense ap-pears not to have opened the doors of inquiry wideenough to allow adequate involvement of the sci-entific and commercial communities. Even in itsdealings with NOAA, the Navy leaves an impres-


sion among civilian officials that it can maintainits control by not sharing important informationgermane to the issue, such as technical limits of itsrequirements. At the same time, the Navy appearsto be skeptical about the scope of claims made bycivilians on their need to access multi-beam data.Whether facts or perceptions, the current debateis rife with concerns that must be overcome if amutual solution is to be reached.

While much of the current debate has centeredon Sea Beam data because of NOAA’s plans to ex-tensively map the EEZ, the Navy has proposed torestrict other multi-beam surveys and geophysicalmonitoring as well, e.g., magnetic and gravity data.Proposals have been made that NOAA collect geo-physical data concurrently with bathymetric data.58

Such multiple sensing could enhance the scientificusefulness of bathymetric surveys, and it also couldincrease the usefulness of data for positioning sub-marines.

Thus far, scientific and commercial interests haveresisted the proposed use of mathematical filters todistort the shape and location of subterranean fea-tures. One option they have discussed is the estab-lishment of secure processing centers to archivebathymetric and geophysical data. Appropriately

—.-—sBNation~ oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ~cporf of the

NOAA Exclusi\e Economic .Zme Bath,wnetrir and Geoph>’sicai SunqVtt’orkshop, Dec. 11-12, 1984, p. 2 .

cleared researchers could then have access to clas-sified data and secure processing equipment to meetscientific and commercial needs. A similar optionwould be to allow secure facilities to be located atuser installations. A significant amount of classi-fied material is handled by civilian contractors un-der supervision of DOD. Similar arrangementsmay be possible with appropriately cleared usersof bathymetric/geophysical data. However, a ma-jor problem exists in that we are now in a ‘ ‘digitalworld, and secure processing of digital data is bothexpensive (site security) and restrictive (no network-ing of computers). Universities and firms typicallyhave linked computers and may have to submit tothe added expense of additional systems to handlethese data. Other innovative means to manage thedifficult problems of balancing national securitywith data access may be possible.

Acceptable resolution of the debate over classify-ing multi-beam bathymetric data will require morecandor and a better exchange of information on allsides of the issue. The Navy appears to have donean insufficient job of communicating its needs andreasons for classification. On the other hand, thescientific community also has had difficulty in ar-ticulating its reasons for needing high-resolutionbathymetry and in backing them with solid exam-ples. Satisfactory solutions will only come by in-cluding in the classification debate those with a stakein the academic and commercial use of bathymet-ric and geophysical data.

Appendixes

Appendix A

State Management of Seabed Minerals

State Mining Laws

All States bordering the territorial sea have statutesgoverning exploration and mining on State lands, in-cluding offshore areas under State jurisdiction. The stat-utes range from single-paragraph general authoriza-tions, equally applicable on land or water, to detailedrules specifically aimed at marine exploration and min-ing. Some States provide separate rules for petroleumand hard minerals. These laws are outlined in table A-1,which only includes laws affecting mining activities. TheStates also have water quality, wildlife, coastal zonemanagement, administrative procedure, and other lawsthat might affect seabed resource development.

There are large differences among the State mininglaws, making a typical or model mining law difficult todescribe. A review of the coastal States’ mining lawsdoes reveal some common characteristics that suggestdifferent ways to achieve each objective.

Scope:

Many States do not separate onshore from offshoredevelopment, thus providing a single administrativeprocess for all mineral resources. At least four States(California, Oregon, Texas, and Washington) distin-guish oil and gas from hard minerals.

Exploration:

Most States have general research programs, carriedout by geological survey offices or academic institutions.Some States provide for more detailed state prospect-ing in areas proposed for leasing. Private explorationgenerally requires a permit.

Area limits are unspecified in most statutes. Land-oriented statutes tend to require smaller tracts, Alaskalimits permits to 2,560 acres but allows a person to holdmultiple permits totalling up to 300,000 acres.

Prospecting permits may be general or for designatedtracts. Alaska, California, Texas, and Washington grantexclusive permits while Delaware, Florida, and Oregondo not. Permits may also specify the type of mineral be-ing sought.

California and Washington grant a preference-rightlease to prospectors making a discovery. Delaware andOregon do not. Other States, including Alaska, Maine,New Hampshire, and Texas, allow all or part of the ex-plored area to be converted to a mining lease upon dis-covery of commercial deposits.

Exploration results must be reported to the State buttheir confidentiality is protected for the duration of theprospecting permit and any subsequent lease. Massa-chusetts requires survey results to be made public priorto the hearing concerning the granting of a lease.

The duration of prospecting permits is generally 1 or2 years with renewal terms ranging from 1 year to in-definite. Alaska provides a 10-year prospecting term.

Annual rents range from $0.25 per acre in Texas andWashington, to $2.00 per acre in California, and $3.00per acre in Alaska. Maine has a sliding scale, increas-ing from $0.25 per acre in the first year to $5.00 peracre in the fifth.

Mining Lease or Permit:

Some States grant preference-right leases or allowconversion. Competitive bidding is the general basis forawarding leases with a cash bonus, or royalty, or bothbeing the bid variable. California also allows biddingon ‘‘net profit or other single biddable factor. SomeStates grant leases noncompetitively, conducting anadministrative review of individual lease applications.Public hearings are usually required under all of thesesystems.

Most States do not specify area limits for mineralleases. Where conversion is allowed, a prospector mayonly convert as much land as is shown to contain work-able mineral deposits or as much as he can show him-self capable of developing. Where limits are specified,they range from 640 acres (Washington) to 6,000 acres(Mississippi). States limiting the acreage covered byeach lease generally do not limit the number of leasesthat a single person may hold.

Lease terms range from 5 years (Virginia) to 10 years(Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina, Oregon) to 20years (Alaska, California, Texas, Washington). Renewalis available, usually for as long as minerals are producedin paying quantities. Leases are generally assignable inwhole or in part, subject to State approval.

Most States require a minimum rent, credited towarda royalty based on production. Minimum annual rentsrange from $0.25 per acre in Delaware to $3.00 per acrein Alaska. Minimum royalties vary from 1/16 of pro-duction in Texas to 3/16 in Mississippi. Louisiana pro-vides different royalties for different minerals, rangingfrom 1/20 to 1/6 of production. Some States provide forpayment in kind.

The use of leasing income variesother purposes, it may be allocated to

greatly. Amongthe general fund,

281

72-672 0 - 87 -- 10

Table A-1.—State Mining Laws

Environmental Current or Statutes andState Agency Exploration Mining permit protection Conflicting uses

—past activity Comments regulations

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . Department of Not specified. Competitive bid- Bids must be Not specified. Oil and gas Ala. Code f9-l5-Ieases. No hard 18 (1980).Conservation &

Land Resources,State Lands Di-vision

Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . Department ofNatural Re-sources, LandsDivision

California . . . . . . . . . State LandsCommission

Exclusive permitup to 5,200acres, 10-yearterm. $3.00 peracre for first twoyears, $3.00 peracre each suc-cessive year.300,000-acrelimit on permitsheld by oneperson.

Exclusive permiton unexploredland, two-yearterm, renewablefor one year. An-nual rental of$2.00 per acre.

ding, tracts upto 5,200 acres.

May be grantednon-competitively toholder of pros-pecting permitfor as muchland as is shownto contain work-able deposits,not to exceed100,000 acres.Known minerallands offered bycompetitivebid/cash bonus,annual rent$3.00 per acrewith credit forexpendituresbenefiting prop-erty. 20-yearterm, renewable.

Holder of pros-pecting permitentitled topreference in ob-taining a lease.Known minerallands leased bycompetitive bidon cash bonus,royalty rate,profit share orother singlebiddable factor.Minimum annualrent $1.00 peracre. Twenty-year term,renewable for10-year terms.No size limit.

made in the pub-lic interest.

Approval fromFish and GameDept. required

All leases mustcomply withenvironmentalimpact report re-quirements.

When not other-wise limited bylaw, nonexclu-sive use ofunoccupied sub-merged landsshall not be de-nied to any citi-zen or resident.

Leases may not“substantiallyimpair the publicrights to naviga-tion and fishingor interfere withthe trust uponwhich the landsare held. ”

minerals.

Pilot mining forgold in marineplacers offNome tookplace in 1985and 1986. Full-scale mining isplanned for1987. Formerlyextensive dredg-ing of shell de-posits for ce-ment, nowexhausted. Nocurrent commer-cial activityother than oiland gas.

A few prospect-ing permits havebeen issued, butno discoverieshave been re-ported. Some in-terest in sandand gravel, butno activemining.

Alaska Stat.$38.05.250(1984). AlaskaAdmin. Code tit.11 ch. 62 (Jan.1981).

Cal. Pub. Res.Code $$6371 and6890 to 6900(West 1977)(supp. 1985). Cal.Admin. Code tit.2552200 to2205.

Table A-1.—State Mining Laws-Continued

Environmental Current orState Agency Exploration Mining permit protection Conflicting uses past activity

Connecticut . . . . . . . Department ofEnvironmentalProtection,Water ResourceUnit

Delaware. . . . . . . . . . Department ofNatural Re-sources andEnvironmentalControl

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . Department ofNatural Re-sources, StateLands Divisionand Bureau ofGeology

Not specified.

Non-exclusivepermit, two yearterm, renewable.No preferentialright to lease.

Nonexclusiveuse agreementand geophysicaltesting permitrequired. One-year term,renewable forsecond year.

Permit requiredfor taking mate-rial from tidal orcoastal waters.Payment re-quired if mate-rial used forcommercial pur-pose. Hearingrequired unlessenvironmentalimpact not sig-nificant. Bondfor damage.

Feasibility ofleasing deter-mined after apublic hearing.Competitivebid/cash bonus.Primary term of10 years, con-tinued for aslong as produc-tion takes place.Maximum areasix square miles.Minimum royalty12.5%, withcredit for rentpaid. Minimumrent $.25 peracre. Productionmust beginwithin threeyears of discov-ery of payingquantity ofminerals.

Lease requiredfor explorationand develop-ment, competi-tive bid/cashbonus.

“due regard forthe preventionand alleviationof shore ero-sion, the protec-tion of neces-sary shellfishgrounds and finfish habitats, thepreservation ofnecessary wild-life habitats.”

Prior to invitingbids, state mustconsiderwhether leasingwould create air,water, or otherpollution.

Coastal watersmanaged primar-ily for naturalconditions andpropagation offish and wildlife.Adverse activi-ties allowed onlyif there is noreasonable alter-native and ade-quate mitigationis proposed.

Must considerdevelopment ofadjoining up-lands, rights ofriparian owners,navigation fa-cilities.

State must con-sider any detri-ment to peopleowning propertyor working inthe area, inter-ference withresidential orrecreational use,esthetic andscenic values ofcoast, interfer-ence with com-merce and navi-gation. Statemay allow rea-sonable, non-conflicting usesof lease area.

Recreation, fish-ing, and boatingare primaryuses. Compati-ble secondaryuses may be al-lowed if they donot detract fromor interfere withprimary uses.

None at presenttime.

Some oil andgas explorationis starting.Some inquiriesbut no activitywith hardminerals.

Sand and shellextraction on asmall scale. Amineral surveyof Gulf waters isunderway.

Statutes andComments regulations

Corm. Gen. Stat.Ann. $$22a-383to 22a-390 (West1985).

Very detailed Del. Code Ann.statute. Re- tit. 7 ch. 61quires consider- (1983).ation andbalancing ofconflicting in-terest.

Recent applica- Fla. Stat. Ann.tions for oil, 5253.45 (West,gas, and mineral 1975). Fla. Ad-exploration per- min. Code ch.mits prompted a 16C-26, 16Q-21,adoption of ma- & 18-21.rine prospectingrules in early1987.

Table A-1.—State Mining Laws—Continued

Environmental Current or Statutes and

State Agency Exploration Mining permit protection Conflicting uses past activity Comments regulations

Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . State PropertiesCommission

Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . . Land Manage-ment Division,Board of Landand Natural Re-sources

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . Department ofNatural Re-sources, MineralResourcesOffice

State may enterinto contract forexploration with-out competitivebidding. Stateinspects or sur-veys land itdesires to lease.

Permit required.No minerals maybe removed be-yond quantityneeded for test-ing and analysis.Logs and assaysturned over toState but keptconfidential. In-formation maybe released ifpermitee doesnot apply for alease within sixmonths.

State undertakesinspection, in-cluding geo-physical andgeological sur-veys in areasproposed forleasing,

Competitive bid,minimum royaltyis 1/8 of produc-tion, Minimumannual rent risesfrom $.10 peracre in the firstyear to $1.00 peracre in thefourth and sub-sequent years.Primary leaseterm is 10 years.

Granted at pub-lic auction fol-lowing publichearing. Term of65 years or lessat Board’s dis-cretion. Miningto commencewithin threeyears of signinglease, but leasemay allow for anadditional periodduring whichlessee is re-quired to spendmoney on re-search and de-velopment toestablish eco-nomical miningand processingmethods for thedeposit. Notmore than foursquare miles perlease, but nolimit on numberof leases heldby one person.

Offered by com-petitive bid.

As far as prac-ticable, preventpollution ofwater, destruc-tion of fish, oys-ters, and marinelife.

Leases must“comply with allwater and airpollution controllaws”

Not specified.

As far as prac-ticable, preventobstruction ofnavigation.

Applications formining leasesshall be disap-proved if theState determinesthat the existingor reasonablyforeseeable fu-ture use wouldbe of greaterbenefit to theState than pro-posed mining.

Not specified.

Some extractionon inland water-ways but noneoffshore.

No presentocean miningwithin Statejurisdiction. Thedraft EIS for aproposed marinemineral leasesale was issuedby a State-Federal Man-ganese CrustWork Group inearly 1987.

Sand for beachnourishment, so-liciting sulphurleases. Interestin salt domes,mainly forsulphur-bearingcap rocks. Somecommercial in-terest in placerdeposits of east-ern delta.

Ga. Code Ann.$50-16-43 (1965).

Hawaii Rev. Stat.ch. 182 (1968)1986 HawaiiSess. Law 91(Ocean and Sub-merged LandsLeasing).

La. Rev. Stat.Ann. $$30:121 to30: 179.14 (West1975) (supp.1966).


EnvironmentalState

Current or Statutes andAgency Exploration Mining permit protection Conflicting uses past activity Comments regulations

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . Maine Geologi-cal Survey

Maryland. . . . . . . . . . Maryland Geo-logical Survey,Coastal and Es-tuarine Branch

Massachusetts . . . . Department ofEnvironmentalQuality Engi-neering

One-year term,renewable forfive years. An-nual rent risesfrom $.25 peracre in the firstyear to $5.00 peracre in the fifth.Annual report ofexploration re-sults required,kept confidentialfor term ofpermit.

Not specified.

License andpublic hearingrequired. Dura-tion and costnot specified.

Explorationclaim may beconverted tolease after pub-lic hearing. Roy-alty set case bycase, “reason-ably related toapplicableroyalty ratesgenerally pre-vailing. ”

Permit requiredfor removal andsale of material

Lease required,reviewed at pub-lic hearing. Athorough andreliable surveyof the resourcesand environ-mental risks isrequired. Surveyto be made pub-lic at least 30days beforehearing.

Post bond to re-claim area andto protectagainst damageto property out-side lease area.

Must follow re-quirements ofState wetlandsact.

Mining pro-hibited in shell-fish areas or inshellfish and fin-fish spawning,nursery, or feed-ing grounds.Mining pro-hibited wherehazardouswastes havebeen dumped.

Not specified

Not specified.

May not un-reasonably inter-fere with naviga-tion, fishing, orconservation ofnatural re-sources.

No present min-ing. A coppermine extendinginto the seastopped produc-tion about 10years ago.Coastal watersbeing surveyedto 100 meter iso-bath. Detailedmineral studiesmay begin nextyear after gen-eral survey iscomplete.

Shell removal inChesapeakeBay. Past dredg-ing in Baltimoreharbor resultedin sale of sandand gravel. Cur-rently mappingsediment distri-bution on con-tinental shelf.May look atheavy minerals ifinitial findingswarrant. Somespot checkingfor sand andgravel in Bay,anticipatingneed to replaceon-land sourcessupplanted bydevelopment.

No mining atpresent, somebeach nourish-ment projects.Nearly allcoastal watersare protected asocean sanctu-aries. Area po-tentially avail-able for miningis around Bos-ton harborwhere a 1972-1973 survey indi-cated a highconcentration ofsand and gravel.

Coastal zone re-strictions maymake seabedmining difficult.

No statute di-rectly regulates.State uses wet-lands andcoastal zonestatutes to setterms for permit.

Me. Rev. Stat.tit. 12, $$549 to558A (1985).

Mass. Gen.Laws Ann. ch.12 $j54 to 56(West 1981).Mass. Admin.Code tit. 310 ch.29 (1983).

.


Environmental Current or Statutes andState Agency Exploration Mining permit protection Conflicting uses past activity Comments regulations

Mississippi. . . . . . . . Department ofNatural Re-sources, Bureauof Geology,Mineral LeaseDivision

New Hampshire. . . . Department ofResources andEconomic Devel-opment

New Jersey . . . . . . . Tidelands Re-source Council

Permit required.Data must beprovided toState but re-mains confiden-tial for tenyears.

Prospecting per-mit required.One-year term,re-newable.

Not specified.

Territorial watersare surveyedand divided into96 lease blocksup to 6,000acres in size.Competitivebid/cash bonus.Minimum royaltyof 3/16 of miner-als extracted.Duration notspecified instatute.

Prospector whodiscovers a de-posit may mineupon filing aclaim and ob-taining a permit.Lease terms (du-ration, royalty,special condi-tions) to be de-termined uponapplication forlease.

License requiredto remove sandor other materialfrom statewaters. Councildetermines dura-tion and com-pensation.Leases arerenewable.Riparian ownershave priority forleases adjacentto shore.

Exploration in Not specifiedwildlife manage-ment areas orMississippiSound or tide-lands subject toreview by Wild-life ConservationDepartment. 2percent of royal-ties are dedic-ated to manage-ment of waters,land, and wild-life and to clean-up of pollutionfrom explorationor extraction.Permit may be Not specified.denied if area isunsuitable formining for envi-ronmental rea-sons or thereclamationplans or pollu-tion preventionmeasures are in-sufficient.

Not specified. Not specified.

Oil and gasleases, no hardmineral activity

No commercialactivity. Surveywork is beingdone in Stateand Federalcoastal waters.

Sand and gravelbeing dredged atedge of Am-brose Channel.

Mining statutedirected at on-shore activity.

Payments go toschool trustfund

Miss. Code Ann.Ij$29-7-l to 29-7-17 (1965).

N.H. Rev. Stat.Ann. ch. 12-E(1961).

N.J. Stat. Ann.f\12:3-12, 12:3-21to 12:3-25.



New York . . . . . . . . . Land ResourcesDivision, Officeof GeneralServices

North Carolina. . . . . Department ofNatural Re-sources andcommunity de-velopment

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . Division of StateLands

Not specified. License re-quired, royaltypaid to Statebased on pro-duction

Not specified. Not specified. Sand and gravelremoval in lowerNew York harborhas been inabeyance since1984. The Stateis in the finalstages of prepar-ing a 10- yearprogram for re-newed sand andgravel dredg-ing.

Theenvironmentalimpact state-ment for a blan-ket water qualitycertificate isnearly complete.This would allowthe State tolease under along-term man-agement pro-gram rather thanreact to applica-tions case bycase.

N.Y. Pub. LandsLaw j22 (McKin-ney 1986).

Not specified.

Non-exclusivepermit, no pref-erential right todiscoveredminerals. Two-year term, re-newable. Drillingrecords must befiled with state.Full explorationrecord may haveto be filed as acondition ofgranting a lease.

‘Within desig-nated bound-aries for definiteperiods of time. . . upon termsand conditionsas may bedeemed wiseand expedientby the State . . .“Ten-year term,renewable. Hear-ing required ifsignificant pub-lic interest is af-fected.

Public hearingto determine ifinviting bidswould be in thepublic interest.Competitivebid/cash bonus.Minimum royalty1/8 of gross pro-duction. Mini-mum annual rentof $.50 per acre,credited towardany royalty due.Ten-year term,renewed for aslong as produc-tion takes place.Drilling must be-gin within fiveyears and pro-duction must be-gin within threeyears of dis-covery.

A permit may bedenied if it willhave “unduly ad-verse effects onwildlife or freshwater, estuarine,or marine fish-eries,” or if itwill violate air orwater qualitystandards.

Fish and Wild-life Departmentmust be con-sulted prior topermit or lease.State must con-sider scenicvalues, air orwater pollution,danger to ma-rine life orwildlife.

All leases orsales made sub-ject to rights ofnavigation.

State must con-sider any detri-ment to peopleworking, living,or owning prop-erty in the area,interference withresidential orrecreational use,or interferencewith commerceor navigation.

Moratorium onmining in Statewaters since1979. Recent re-quest to explorefor sand andgravel denieddue to waterquality con-cerns. Taskforce beingformed to studyfeasibility ofphosphatemining.

Survey of oceanresources re-cently com-pleted. Intensivesurvey of GordaRidge (Federalwaters) summerof 1986. No min-ing activity.

Proceeds fromsales go toDept. of NaturalResources foradministrativecosts and fordevelopmentand conserva-tion of State’snatural re-sources.

Administrativerules for com-mercial offshoreoil, gas & sul-phur surveysadopted June1986. Rules forhard minerals &academic re-search are beingprepared.

N.C. Gen. Stat.5$74-50 to 74-68,143 B-389, 146-8(1985).

Or. Rev. Stat.$273.551 and274.705 to274.860 (1981).



Rhode Island . . . . . . Coastal Re- Not specified.sources Man-agementCouncil

South Carolina . . . . Land Resources Not specified.and Conserva-tion Commission

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . General Land Of- Exclusive permitfice, Petroleum up to 640 acres.and Mineral De- One-year term,velopment renewable for up

to four addi-tional years.Minimum annualrent of $.25 peracre. Quarterlyreport required,information re-mains confiden-tial for as longas prospectingor mining permitis held.

Permit fromCouncil re-quired.

Lease required.Minimum royaltyof 1/8 of pro-duction.

Proposed leasemust evidencediscovery of acommercial de-posit and offerterms compara-ble to the bestlease in thearea. Primaryterm of 20 yearsand for as longthereafter asminerals are pro-duced in payingquantities. Firstyear rental atleast $2.00 peracre. Subse-quent years,$1.00 per acreagainst a mini-mum royalty of1/16 of value ofminerals pro-duced. Monthlyroyalty report re-quired.

The Rhode ls-Iand Coastal Re-sources Manage-ment Programclassifies Statewaters andcoastal areas,establishing per-mitted uses anddevelopmentprocedures foreach type ofarea.

All leases aresubject to con-servation laws.

Lease may in-clude any provi-sions consid-ered “necessaryfor protection ofthe interests ofthe State.”

See Environ-mental Pro-tection.

Not specified.

Not specified.

No present ac-tivity.

No mining or ex-ploration atpresent time.There are knownphosphate de-posits in shal-low water, butno commercialinterest atpresent.

No hard mineralactivity. Noknown resourcesother than oiland gas in statewaters.

The Council hasauthority over alldevelopment inState waters andover land devel-opment whichrelates to ormay conflictwith or damagethe coastal envi-ronment. Miningis prohibited onbeaches anddunes and intidal waters andin salt ponds.

R.I. Gen. Lawstit. 46, ch. 23(1985).

S.C. Code Ann.tit. 10, ch. 9 (LawCo-Op. 1976).

Tex. Nat. Res.Code ch. 53(1986). Tex. Ad-min. Code tit. 31$$13.31 to 13.36(1979).

Table A-1 .—State Mining Laws—Continued


Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . Marine Re- Not specified. Permit requiredsources Com- for removal ofmission material. Lease

term five years,renewable.Royalty not lessthan $.20 normore than $.60per cubic yardof materialremoved.

Washington . . . . . . . Department of Lease required, Twenty-yearNatural Re- two year term, term, renewable.sources renewable. An- First four years

nual rent of $.25 are prospectingper acre. Con- or explorationvertible to period.mining contract.Holder ofprospectinglease has prefer-ence to miningcontract. Leaseno less than 40acres nor morethan 640 acres,no limit on num-ber of leases perperson.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987,

Not specified. No lease may in-terfere with pub-lic rights to fish-ing, fowling, ortaking of shell-fish. Seasonaldredging limita-tions may be im-posed to lessenadverse effectson fisheries.

Work must be If land to be“consistent with mined has al-general conser- ready beenvation prin- Ieased forciples. ” another purpose,

lessee is to becompensated forany damagecaused by min-ing orprospecting.

No current min-ing. Ongoing re-search revealsgood possibilityof commercialtitanium-bearingminerals in Stateand Federalwaters.

Some prospect-ing in blacksands area atmouth of theColumbia River.

The State is pre-paring a suba-queous mineralsmanagementplan and is com-bining field re-search with alegislative pro-gram to meet fu-ture develop-ment needs.

Va. Code $j62.1-3 and 62.1-4(1986). Suba-quaeous Guide-lines, Va. MarineResourcesComm. (1986).

Wash. Rev. CodeAnn. ff79.01.616to 79.01.650(1985) Wash. Ad-min. Code ch.332-16 (1977).


to education, to administration of the mining program,to resource conservation, to management and researchprograms, to the agency having management responsi-bility for the leased property, and to local governments.

Many States require work to proceed at a minimumrate. Some simply require ‘‘diligence’ or a ‘‘good faitheffort’ or may specify a time limit for starting produc-tion (3 years in Delaware and Hawaii, 4 years in Wash-ington). Other States require minimum expendituresfor development or improvements ($2.50 per acre an-nually in Washington). In Hawaii, the lease may pro-vide for an initial research period during which the les-see is required to undertake research and developmentto establish economic mining and processing methodsfor the mineral deposit.

Environmental Protection:

Environmental regulations may require preparationof an environmental impact analysis for each project.Some States prepare a blanket analysis as part of a com-prehensive management program, anticipating individ-ual applications. Many statutes identify special areasto be protected or avoided. These include shellfish bedsand spawning, nursery, or feeding grounds (Connecti-cut, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Virginia), areas thatare part of the beach sand circulation system, and areaswhere hazardous wastes have been dumped (Massachu-setts). Environmental review also requires coordinationwith other agencies and statutes. Among these are fishand wildlife departments, air and water quality laws,and coastal zone management agencies.

Conflicting Uses:

Some States identify certain uses as primary or pro-tected, and conflicting uses are prohibited or restricted.Fishing and navigation rights are most commonly men-tioned as protected. Virginia may impose seasonaldredging limitations to protect commercially or recrea-tionally important fisheries. Florida gives priority tomaintaining natural conditions and propagation of fishand wildlife. Recreation, fishing, and boating are pri-mary uses, Rhode Island State waters are classified byuse (from conservation areas to industrial waterfronts)with permitted activities and development spelled outfor each class. Connecticut, Delaware, and Oregon re-quire that impacts on upland property owners or usersbe considered. Hawaii would not allow mining if theexisting or reasonably foreseeable use of the propertywould be of greater benefit to the State. Delaware andOregon require scenic values to be considered. Pipe-lines, cables, and aids to navigation are protected byminimum setbacks. Setbacks from shore are specifiedin some cases, Florida requires oil and gas leases to be

at least 1 mile offshore. Other leases are prohibited fromthe 3-foot low water depth landward to the nearest pavedroad. Massachusetts prohibits mining in nearshore areasthat supply beach sediments, generally to the 80-footdepth contour.

Public Participation:

About half the States require published notice of aproposed lease, either in a statewide newspaper or inthe affected county or both. About one-quarter of theStates require a public hearing before granting a lease.Two require a hearing prior to granting a prospectingpermit. Massachusetts requires an applicant to disclose‘‘reliable information as to the quantities, quality andlocation of the resource available . . .“

Regulation and Enforcement:

All States reserve the right to inspect the work siteand the prospecting or mining records. Exploration re-sults, development work, and materials mined and soldmust be reported. Reporting periods vary from monthlyto annual.

The States generally require bonds or insurance tocover faithful performance of the contract, reclamationof the site, and cleanup of pollution resulting from ex-ploration or mining and to indemnify the State againstclaims arising from the project.

Permits or leases may be revoked for failure to dili-gently pursue exploration or mining, for failure to meetreporting requirements, or for failure to pay rents orroyalties. Revocation is generally an administrative actby the managing State agency and is subject to admin-istrative or judicial appeal. Revocation may be partial,allowing the operator to keep production sites not indefault.

Current Activities

There is little offshore mining in State waters at thepresent time. Sand, gravel, and shell are the only ma-terials currently with significant commercial markets.Existing operations include sand and gravel dredgingon the New York and New Jersey sides of AmbroseChannel in lower New York harbor, sand and shell ex-traction in Florida, shell extraction in Chesapeake Bay,and a pilot gold dredging project off Nome, Alaska. Inaddition, there are non-commercial beach nourishmentprograms using offshore sand. The absence of otheractivity is variously attributed by State officials to a lackof mineral resources, a lack of information about anyresources that may exist, or to the higher cost of oceanmining compared to onshore mining of the same ma-terial.

App. A—State Management of Seabed Minerals ● 291

The general lack of mining activity means that fewof the statutes have been actually tested. But there areseveral States where recent exploration has spurred areview of existing laws. The Virginia legislature estab-lished a Subaqueous Minerals and Materials StudyCommission. Now in its third year, the Commission’smandate is ‘ ‘to determine if the subaqueous mineralsand materials of the commonwealth exist in commer-cial quantities and if the removal, extraction, use, dis-position, or sale of these materials can be adequatelymanaged to ensure the public interest. The commis-sion is preparing recommendations for systematic ex-ploration of seabed resources (supplementing the presentcooperative effort by the Minerals Management Serv-ice, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, and theVirginia Institute of Marine Science), a subaqueousminerals management plan, and statutory changes(some already adopted) to guide future development.

Public debate over a 1984 permit for seismic studiesin the Columbia River prompted Oregon to review itslaws. In particular, there was concern with protectingestablished fishing and navigation interests, maintain-ing the quality of the marine environment, and provid-ing adequate public input into what had been an in-house agency review process. The Division of StateLands adopted administrative rules for commercial off-shore oil, gas, and sulphur surveys in June 1986. It isnow preparing administrative rules covering geologicand geophysical surveys by commercial hard mineralprospectors and for academic research. A recent changein Oregon State law permits the Division of State Landsto enter into exploration contracts whereby a prospec-tor would have a preference right to develop and recoverminerals should the State move to actually permit oceanmineral development.

Florida adopted marine prospecting rules in January1987 to cope with a growing number of applications toexplore for oil, gas, and other minerals in State waters.

The North Carolina Office of Marine Affairs is be-ginning a long range project to develop a marine re-sources management program.

Conclusion

While the States are for the most part inexperiencedin managing seabed minerals, they have the ability todevelop effective programs. Knowledge and resourcesfrom established coastal zone management, water qual-ity, and hydrocarbon development can be readily

tapped. Expertise is also available from academic ma-rine science programs and State geological surveyoffices. As projects continue, the States have used themas a basis for reviewing their existing management pro-grams and for making improvements.

Since 1983, the Minerals Management Service hasbeen funding State marine minerals research under anannual cooperative agreement with the Texas Bureauof Economic Geology of the University of Texas at Aus-tin. All of the coastal States and Puerto Rico have par-ticipated in this program at various times since it be-gan. State research projects focus on both petroleum andhard minerals and range from general surveys of aState’s seabed to detailed geologic studies and economicevaluations of specific mineral occurrences. Some of theresearch extends into Federal waters. The agreementfor the fifth year of this program (fiscal year 1987) isnow being prepared. Funding has been approximately$550,000 annually, with about 18 States participatingeach year.

While a State’s role in the Exclusive Economic Zonehas yet to be defined, State-Federal task forces have beenformed for areas where promising deposits have beenfound. The task forces’ mission is to appraise the com-mercial potential of the deposits and to oversee the prep-aration of environmental impact statements for leasingproposals. Such task forces have been formed with Ha-waii (cobalt-rich manganese crusts), Oregon and Cali-fornia (polymetallic sulfides in the Gorda Ridge), NorthCarolina (phosphorites), Georgia (heavy minerals), andthe Gulf States (sand, gravel, and heavy minerals offAlabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana). Thefunctioning of these task forces may provide a neededtest of Federal-State cooperation.

If sand and gravel and other nearshore deposits arelikely to be the first to be developed, it is also likely thatoperations will overlap State and Federal jurisdiction.Even activities entirely in Federal waters may concernthe States because of environmental effects extendingbeyond the mining site, economic and social effects ofonshore support facilities, or effects on local fishing,navigation, and recreational interests. Proposed min-ing operations would benefit from a system of compati-ble Federal and State requirements. Federal support forwork by the States can take two paths: continued sup-port for field research to gain better knowledge of ma-rine resources, and support for legislative efforts to de-velop consistent systems for environmentally sound andeconomically feasible seabed mining.

Appendix B

The Exclusive Economic Zone andU.S. Insular Territories

U.S. Territorial Law

In addition to the waters off the 50 States, the Exclu-sive Economic Zone (EEZ) includes the waters contig-uous to the insular territories and possessions of theUnited States.: This inclusion is significant in that theislands include only 1.5 percent of the population and0.13 percent of the land area of the United States*, but30 percent of the area of the EEZ.3 This appendix dis-cusses the legal relationship between the United Statesand these islands, with attention to the power of the U.S.to proclaim and manage the EEZ around them.

The general principle of Federal authority has beenthat, “In the Territories of the United States, Congresshas the entire dominion and sovereignty, national andlocal, Federal and State, and has full legislative powerover all subjects upon which the legislature of a Statemight legislate within the State . . "4 This claim ofcomplete power has been modified for some islands bystatutes and compacts granting varying degrees of au-tonomy to the local population. The discussion belowclassifies the islands into three categories distinguishedby the degree of Federal control and local self-govern-ment. The first group (A) includes eight small islands,originally uninhabited, which are under the direct man-agement jurisdiction of Federal agencies. The secondgroup (B) includes American Samoa, Guam, and theVirgin Islands. These islands are largely self-governingbut subject to supervision by the Department of the In-terior. The third group (C) includes Puerto Rico andthe Northern Marianas whose commonwealth statusgives them the full measure of internal self-rule whereFederal supervisory power is greatly reduced.

Group A

Palmyra Atoll. —Claimed by both Hawaii and theUnited States early in the 19th century, Palmyra wasannexed to the U.S. with Hawaii in 1898. The HawaiiStatehood Bill excluded Palmyra (as well as Midway,Johnston Island, and Kingman Reef) from the territory

‘Proclamation No. 5030, 3 C. F.R. 22 ( 1984), mprintecf in 16 U. S.C. A. 1453(1985). /

‘U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1986,6 (1985).

‘C. Ehler and D. Basta, “Strategic Assessment of Multiple Resource-UseConflicts in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, ” OCEANS ’84 ConferenceProceeding, 2 (NOAA Reprint, 1984).

4Simms v. Simms, 175 U.S. 162, 168 ( 1899).

of the new State.5 The island is privately owned anduninhabited. By executive order it is under the Depart-ment of the Interior’s jurisdiction.6

Johnston Island. —Claimed by the United States andHawaii in 1858, Johnston Island was annexed to theU.S. in 1898. In the late 1950s and early 1960s the is-land was the launch site for atmospheric nuclear tests.A caretaker force maintains the site and operations cen-ter for the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA), which isresponsible for the island. About 500 U.S. Army per-sonnel are on Johnston, preparing a disposal system forobsolete chemical weapons stored there. Entry is con-trolled by DNA.7

Kingman Reef. —This island was annexed by theUnited States in 1922. Most of it is awash during highwater. The island is under the U.S. Navy’s jurisdiction,8

but no personnel or facilities are maintained on it.Midway Islands. —Annexed in 1867, Midway has

been managed by the U.S. Navy since 1903.9 The Mid-way Naval Station was closed in 1981, leaving a navalair facility as the only active military installation.

Wake Island. —Wake has been claimed by theUnited States since 1899. Initially assigned to the U.S.Navy, Wake was transferred to the Department of theInterior (DOI) in 196210 and is now administered bythe Air Force under special agreement with DOI. 11

Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands.—Originallyclaimed under the Guano Act of 1856,12 these islandswere formally annexed by the United States in 1934.They were assigned to DOI 2 years later.13 Briefly col-onized during the 1930s by settlers from Hawaii, theislands have been uninhabited since World War II.

Comment.–Johnston, Midway, and Wake Islandsand Kingman Reef have been declared Naval defenseareas and Naval airspace reservations. They are sub-ject to special access restrictions, some of which are sus-pended but which may be reinstated without notice.

5Pub1ic Law 86-3 $2, 73 Stat. 4 ( 1959).bExecutive Order No, 10967, 26 Fed. Reg. 9667 (1961).732 C.F. R. 761 .4(c)(1985).‘Executive Order No. 6935, Dec. 29, 1934,‘Executive Order No. 11048, 27 Fed, Reg. 8851 ( 1962), superseding Ex-

ecutive Order No. 199-4, Jan. 20, 1903.IOExecutjve Order No. 11048, 27 Fed. Reg 8851 ( 1962).1137 Fed. Reg. 12255 (1972).)248 IJ. S,C. 1411 to 1419 (1982).IJExecutive order No. 7368, 1 Fed. Reg. 405 ( 1936).I*32 C.F, R. 761 (1985).

292

App. B—The Exclusive Economic Zone and U.S. Insular Territories ● 293

The Federal District Court of Hawaii has jurisdic-tion over civil and criminal matters arising on the eightislands in this group. 15

Group B

American Samoa.—U. S. interest in the islands ofAmerican Samoa dates back to the middle of the 19thcentury, and for a time there were conflicting claimswith the United Kingdom and Germany. These claimswere settled by a treaty in which Germany and the U.K.renounced all of their rights and claims to the islandseast of 171 degrees west longitude in favor of the UnitedStates. ’G On April 17, 1900, sovereignty over Tutuila,Aunu’u, and their dependent islands was ceded to theU.S. by their chiefs. The Manu’a islands were similarlyceded on July 14, 1904.17 The cessions were formallyaccepted by Congress in 1929.18 The United States ex-tended sovereignty over Swains Island (originallyclaimed under the Guano Act) and added it to Amer-ican Samoa in 1925.19

The act accepting sovereignty over Samoa states thatuntil Congress provides otherwise, ‘‘all civil, judicial,and military powers shall be vested in such person orpersons and shall be exercised in such manner as thePresident of the United States shall direct. ’20 The U.S.Navy administered American Samoa21 until authoritywas transferred to DOI in 1951.22 The islands are largelyself-governing under a constitution adopted in 1966,with DOI exercising only general supervision. The con-stitution is subject to amendment by Congress .23 Whilethe cessions, constitution, and statutes of Samoa pro-tect traditional local government and land tenure, allare silent as to any use of the sea beyond the 3-mile ter-ritorial limit (tidal and submerged lands have beentransferred to the territorial government24). The cessionsrequired respect for local property rights and recogni-tion of the traditional authority of the chiefs over theirtowns, while ‘‘all sovereign rights thereunto belonging’were granted to the United States. Article 1, Section 3of the American Samoa constitution declares it to be thepolicy of the government ‘‘to protect persons of Samoanancestry against alienation of their lands and the de-struction of the Samoan way of life and language . . "

IJ48 U S C 644a (1982) .I Convention for [he Adjustment of Questions Relating to Samoa, Dec. 2,

1899, United States—Germany—Great Britain, 31 Stat. 1878I TThe ~e~~ion~ am reproduced in the historical documents section of the Amer-

ican Samoa Code Annotated.1845 Stat 1253, 48 U .S. C 1661 ( 1982).Ig43 Stat $357, 48 U .S.C 1662 ( 1982).2048 U.S C. 1661(c) ( 1982)21 Executive order No. 125-4, Feb 19, 1900.2zExecutive Order No. 10,264, 16 Fed. Reg 6419.2348 U S C 1662a ( 1982).2448 U S C. 1705 ( 1982)

The American Samoa code implements this policy, pre-serving ‘‘customs not in conflict with the laws of Amer-ican Samoa and of the United States . . "25

Guam.— Spain took possession of Guam along withthe other Mariana Islands in the 16th century. Thetreaty ending the Spanish-American war ceded Guamto the United States. 26 Article VIII of the treaty cededcrown lands to the U.S. Government and guaranteedprotection of existing municipal, church, and privateproperty rights. The U.S. Navy administered the islanduntil 1949 when DOI took over.27 Since then, Guamhas been governed under the Organic Act of 1950, asamended. 28

The governor and legislature are locally elected andare responsible for most matters of internal governance.DOI’s role is to provide “general administrative super-vision. ” The Department is most active in the areas ofbudget, capital improvements, and technical advice.Congress reserves the power to annul local legislation.A proposed constitution failed to win popular approvalin 1979. Since that time, efforts have been redirectedtoward settling the island’s status before another con-stitutional convention is called. Guam residents stronglyfavored commonwealth status in a 1982 referendum anda proposed commonwealth act will be presented to thevoters in Guam on August 8, 1987.29

Virgin Islands.—The U.S. Virgin Islands wereceded to the United States by Denmark in 1916.30 Therights to crown property were transferred to the U.S.Government, while municipal, church, and private prop-erty rights were preserved. Other than a few exceptionsnamed in the treaty, Denmark guaranteed the cessionto be “free and unencumbered by any reservations,privileges, franchises, [or] grants . . "

The U.S. Virgin Islands are self-governing under theOrganic Act of 193631 and the Revised Organic Act of1954, as amended.32 The popularly elected legislatureand governor have authority over local matters but Con-gress retains the power to annul insular legislation .33Matters of Federal concern are ‘ ‘under the generaladministrative supervision of the Secretary of the In-terior . DOI’s role is mainly administration and au-diting of Federal funds appropriated for the islands.

2jAm, Samoa Code Ann, $1.0202 ( 1983).

‘cTreaty of Peace, Dec. 10, 1898, United States-Spare, 30 Stat 175427 Execut,Y,e Order NO. 10077, 14 Fed. Reg 5523 ( 1949)

Zscodified a t 4 8 U S C . 1 4 2 1 et seq ( 1982)29Guam commission on Se] f. Determina[ ion, ‘ ‘The Draft Guam Common-

wealth Act” (June 11, 1986)SoConlrention for cession of the Danish West Indies, Aug. 4, 1916, United

States—Denmark, 39 Stat. 1706.!148 U ,S, C. 1391 et ‘er? ( 1 9 8 2 )

3248 U .S. C. 1541 et seq. ( 1982)334fJ U S,C 1574(c) ( 1982)


Like Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands are authorizedto draft their own constitution .34 The most recent of sev-eral proposed constitutions was turned down by votersin 1981. At the present time, the issues of a constitu-tion and status are in abeyance.

Comment.— All three of these territories enjoy a largemeasure of self-rule, but under the territorial clause ofthe Constitution35 their governments are, in effect, Fed-eral agencies exercising delegated power. Neither theinitial cessions nor any subsequent grant of local powerhave insulated the islands from highly discretionary Fed-eral authority.

The Executive Branch, acting through the Depart-ment of the Interior, maintains fiscal and other super-visory powers. Congress retains the right to approve andamend local constitutions or to annul local statutes. Itappears that nothing in domestic law would impede theestablishment and development of EEZs around theseislands.

Group C

Puerto Rico. —Spain ruled Puerto Rico from 1508until 1898. The island was ceded to the United Statesby the Treaty of Paris under the same terms and con-ditions as Guam.36 After nearly 2 years of military rule,

the island was administered under Organic Acts passedin 190037 and 1917.38 In 1950 Congress passed the PuertoRican Federal Relations Act ‘‘in the nature of a com-pact so that the people of Puerto Rico may organize agovernment pursuant to a constitution of their ownadoption. ’39 This Act provided for the automatic re-peal of those sections of the 1917 Act pertaining to localconcerns and the structure of the island’s government.The repeal was effective upon adoption and proclama-tion of the constitution in 1952, and Puerto Rico then‘‘ceased to be a territory of the United States subjectto the plenary powers of Congress . . "40 The govern-ment of Puerto Rico no longer exercises delegated power,and its constitution and laws may not be amended byCongress.

The Puerto Rico constitution establishes the common-wealth and declares that ‘‘political power emanates fromthe people, to be exercised according to their will withinthe terms of the compact between them and the UnitedStates. "41 “Commonwealth” is an undefined term and,as noted above, the ‘‘compact’ is not a comprehensive

3+PubliC LaW 94-584, 90 Stat. 2899 ( 1976), as amended by Public Law 96-

597, 94 Stat. 3479 (1980).93u, s, Const, art. IV, $3.

3%ee note 26, above.3TThe Foraker Act, ch. 191 , 31 Stat. 77 (1900).38The Jones Act, ch. 145, 39 Stat. 951 (1917).3gCh, 446, 64 Stat. 319 (1950).*“United States v. Quinones, 758 F.2d 40, 42 (1985).+Ip, R, Const. a r t . I , $1.

agreement but the residue of the 1917 Organic Act fromwhich the irrelevant provisions have been stripped. Ithas remained for the courts to struggle toward clarifi-cation of this status.

Puerto Rico is subject to the U.S. Constitution but“like a state, is an autonomous political entity, ‘sover-eign over matters not ruled by the Constitution."42

Federal laws “not locally inapplicable” have the sameforce and effect in Puerto Rico as in the States.43 Fed-eral statutes may exempt Puerto Rico or may includeit on terms different from the States .44 Relations betweenthe courts of Puerto Rico and the Federal courts are thesame as those for State courts .45 The principles of defer-ence and comity apply to Federal court review of PuertoRico’s legislative, executive, and judicial acts.46

For all of its State-like attributes, commonwealth sta-tus is inherently ambiguous. Congressional power totreat the island differently leaves Puerto Rico uncertainas to its participation in important Federal programs.Court cases resolving specific issues do not provide acoherent, overall definition of the scope of local author-ity. What President Johnson called a ‘‘creative and flex-ible’ relationship

47 has come to be viewed as an un-satisfactory, interim arrangement. While disagreeing onthe form of the ultimate relationship, all of Puerto Rico’spolitical parties agree that a clear outline of the island’spowers vis-à-vis the Federal Government is essential .48There are no legal obstacles to such a change. On theisland’s side, ‘‘the Constitution of the Commonwealthof Puerto Rico does not close the door to any changeof status that the people of Puerto Rico desire . . "49

On the Federal side, there have been repeated execu-tive50 and congressiona151 declarations that the choiceof status remains with the people of Puerto Rico.

Statehood would give Puerto Rico equal standingwith the other States in whatever management regimeCongress establishes for the EEZ. Independence would

+ZRodri~ez V. popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1, 8 ( 1982) (quoting

Mora v. Mejias, 115 F. Supp 610, 612 [D. P,R, 1953]).4348 U.S, C. 734 (1982).tt~arrjs V, Rosat-io, 446 U.S. 651 (1980) (per curiam) (overturning a ruling

that lower A.F. D.C. payments in Puerto Rico violate the equal protectionguarantees of the Fifth Amendment under the territorial clause. ‘ ‘Con-gress may treat Puerto Rico differently from States so long as there is arational basis for its actions.

*$48 IJ, !j, C, 864 (1982).+eRodriguez V, popular Democratic Party, supra, at 8; Hernandez-Agosto

v. Romero-Barcelo, 748 F.2d 1, 5 (lst Cir, 1984).~TStatement in Response to the Report of the United States—Puerto Rico

Status Commission, 2 Weekly Comp, Pres, Dec. 1034 (Aug. 5, 1966),~gp, F~k, ed., ~~e political Status of Puerto Rico (Lexington, MA: Lexing-

ton Books, 1986); Puerto Rico’s Political Future: A Divisive Issue with ManyDimensions (GAO Report GGD-81-48, Mar. 2, 1981).

+gPuerto Rico socj~jst parry v. Commonwea/ds, 107 p. R. Dec. 590, 606(1978).

q Week]y Comp, Pres. Doc, 1034 (Aug. 5, 1966) (Johnson); 12 WeeUY

Comp. Pres. Dec. 1225 Uuly 7, 1976) (Ford); 13 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc,1374 (Sept. 17, 1977) (Carter); 18 Weekly Comp. Pres. Dec. 19 (Jan. 12, 1982)(Reagan).

31S, Con, Res, 35, 93 Stat. 1420 ( 1979).

App. B—The Exclusive Economic Zone and U.S. Insular Territories ● 295

give the island full control and sovereignty. Under thepresent system, the island’s local power does not includerights in the EEZ. The Popular Democratic Party’s pro-posed modifications to the compact include local author-ity over the use of natural resources and the sea.52

The Northern Mariana Islands.—These islandswere colonized by Spain in the 16th century and trans-ferred to Germany in 1899. Japan seized Germany’s Pa-cific possessions in 1914 and was given a mandate overthem by the League of Nations in 1920. The Marianaswere taken by the United States during World War II.In 1947, the United States was granted a trusteeshipover the former Japanese mandated islands .53 As per-mitted by the charter of the United Nations, theTrusteeship Agreement recognized both the strategic in-terests of the United States and the political, economic,and social advancement of the inhabitants .54 Status ne-gotiations with the Northern Marianas resulted in theestablishment of a commonwealth ‘‘in political unionwith the United States. "55 The other three island groupsof the Trust Territory became free associated states. 56

When the U.S. EEZ was proclaimed, the Marianaswere included in the zone ‘ ‘to the extent consistent withthe Covenant and the United Nations TrusteeshipAgreement. ’57 Article 6(2) of the Trusteeship Agree-ment requires the United States to ‘‘promote the eco-nomic advancement and self-sufficiency of the inhabi-tants” by regulating the use of natural resources,encouraging the development of fisheries, agriculture,and industries, and protecting the inhabitants againstthe loss of their lands and resources. The Covenant issilent as to management of ocean resources but providesfor a constitution to be adopted by the people of theNorthern Mariana Islands and submitted to the UnitedStates for approval on the basis of consistency with theCovenant, the U.S. Constitution, and applicable lawsand treaties. 58 The constitution was adopted locally on

52pucrto R ,=0 po]iticaJ Future, supra n 48, 45

“’trusteeship Agreement for the Former Japanese N4andated Islands, July18, 1947, 61 Stat. 3301, T. I A S, No 1665 [hereinafter ‘ ‘TrusteeshipA g r e e m e n t

MU N Charter, chapter XII, Trusteeshi p Agreement, arts. 1, 5, 6.55conVcnant t. Establish a Comrncsnweafth of the Northern Mariana Islands

m Po] it ical Union with the United States, Feb. 15, 1975, 90 Stat. 263 [here-inafter “Covenant”]

5eAs such, they are Independent countries in which U. S interest is mostiyllm]ted to security matters The Compacts provide that the states conduct for-etgn affairs in their own names, including ‘ ‘the conduct of foreign affairs relat-ing to law of the sea and marme resource matters, including the harvesting,conservation, exploratmn or exploitation of lwing and non-11 ~.ing resources fromthe sea, seabed, or sub-soil to the full extent recognized under internationallaw. ” Compact of Free Association Federated States of Micronesia and Repub-lic of the Marshall Islands and Palau, Jan. 14, 1986, 99 Stat, 1770, art. II,$121 [hereinafter ‘ ‘Compact’ This provision puts the three states outside thescope of the U. S Exclusive Economic Zone Proclamation No 5564, note 60,below, effectuated the Compact with the Federated States of Micronesia andwith the Republlc of the Marshall Islands. The Compact with The Republicof Palau is undergoing the local rat ificatlon process

$Tproc]amation No. 5030, supra note 1.58 Covenant, art. 1 I.

March 6, 1977, and proclaimed effective on January 9,1978 by President Carter.

59 Unlike the Covenant, theconstitution contains two provisions relevant to the EEZ.Article XI (Public Lands) declares submerged lands offthe coast to which the Commonwealth may claim titleunder U.S. law to be public lands to be managed anddisposed of as provided by law. Article XIV (NaturalResources) provides, in Section 1, that “[t]he marineresources in waters off the coast of the Commonwealthover which the Commonwealth now or hereafter mayhave jurisdiction under United States law shall be man-aged, controlled, protected and preserved by the legis-lature for the benefit of the people.

U.S. interest in the Northern Marianas under theTrusteeship Agreement was administrative, not sover-eign. The change to U.S. sovereignty required UnitedNations approval to be implemented. On May 28, 1986,the United Nations Trusteeship Council concluded thatU.S. obligations had been satisfactorily discharged, thatthe people of the Northern Marianas had freely exer-cised their right to self-determination, and that it wasappropriate for the Trusteeship Agreement to be ter-minated. 60 On November 3, 1986, President Reaganissued a proclamation ending the trusteeship, fully estab-lishing the Commonwealth, and granting Americancitizenship to its residents. 61 As a U.S. territory, theNorthern Marianas are now subject to U.S. law in themanner and to the extent provided by the Convenant.

The Exclusive Economic Zone andU.S. Territorial Law

Under our system, the authority of Congress over theterritories is both clear and absolute. This authorityoriginates in the constitutional grant to Congress of the“Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules andRegulations respecting the Territory or other Propertybelonging to the United States. ” Any restriction on thispower would come from the terms under which a terri-tory was initially acquired by the United States or froma subsequent grant of authority from Congress to theterritory. As shown above, the present territories haveno explicitly reserved or granted power to manage theEEZ. It has also been shown that Congress may treatthe territories differently from the States as long as thereis a rational basis for its action.

The territorial clause has two purposes: to bring civilauthority to undeveloped frontier areas and to promotetheir political and economic development. Its goal is theachievement, through statehood or some other arrange-ment, of a clear and stable relationship between the ter-

Sgprocjamatlon No 4534, 42 Fed. Reg. 56593 ( 1977).W T. C . Res. 2183 (LIII)( 1986)~1 proclamation No 5564, 51 Fed. Reg 40399 ( 1986)


ritory and the rest of the Union. In the past, Federalcontrol over territorial affairs was tolerable becauseeventual statehood would bring equality of treatmentand constitutional limitations on Federal power. Thereare grounds for suggesting that the present territoriesdo not fit the pattern of earlier ones and that they are“poorly served by a constitutional approach based onevolutionary progress toward statehood. "62 Rather thanbeing frontier areas settled by Americans who later peti-tioned their government for statehood, the present ter-ritories joined the U.S. with developed cultures of theirown and may wish to preserve their uniqueness by re-maining apart from the Union of States. Proposals todevelop the EEZ, like other Congressional action un-der the territorial clause, should recognize their specialposition.

International Law Considerations

The EEZ is based on international law’s recognitionof a coastal state’s right to manage resources beyondthe Territorial Sea. President Reagan based the procla-mation on this international principle and stated thatthe ‘ ‘United States will exercise these sovereign rightsand jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of inter-national law. "63 This section examines how interna-tional law may bear on the EEZ around U.S. territories.

The primary sources of international law are treatiesand international custom. 64 The former is explicit anddocumented while the latter is deduced from actual prac-tice. This review will focus on three areas relevant toterritories: the United Nations Charter and resolutionspertaining to non-self-governing territories, the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and thepractice of other countries with respect to their over-seas territories.

The United Nations Charter and Resolutions

Article 73 of the United Nations Charter calls onmember states to recognize that the interests of the in-habitants of non-self-governing territories are para-mount. Members are to ensure the political, economic,social, and educational advancement of the territoriesand to promote constructive measures for their devel-opment. In addition, members accept a responsibility‘‘to develop self-government, to take due account of thepolitical aspirations of the peoples, and to assist themin the progressive development of their free political in-stitutions, according to the particular circumstances of

blL~ibOWitZ united .$ta(es Feder~iSrn; The States and the Territories, 28

Am. U.L, Re’v, 449, 451 (1979),sJproclamation No, 5030, supra n. 1.s+ Restatement (revised) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States 102

(Tent. Draft No. 6, 1985).

each territory and its peoples and their varying stagesof advancement. "65

Two General Assembly resolutions amplify theUnited Nations’ view of territories. Resolution 1514calls for immediate steps to transfer all powers to thepeople of trust and non-self-governing territories “inaccordance with their freely expressed will and desire. "66

Resolution 1541, passed a day later, establishes princi-ples for determining when a territory reaches “a fullmeasure of self government. "67 Three options are rec-ognized: independence, free association with an inde-pendent state, and integration with an independentstate. The United Nations has formally recognized thefree association status of Puerto Rico68 and of the North-ern Marianas.69 The United States provides annualreports to the United Nations concerning AmericanSamoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and theyhave been the subject of occasional visiting missionsfrom the United Nations. Their status, along with othernon-self-governing territories has been reviewed annu-ally by the General Assembly. The most recent resolu-tions are typical in calling on the United States and theterritories to safeguard the right of the territorial peo-ple to the enjoyment of their natural resources and todevelop those resources under local control.70 Signifi-cantly, the resolution concerning Guam urges theUnited States ‘‘to safeguard and guarantee the right ofthe people of Guam to the natural resources of the Ter-ritory, including marine resources within its exclusiveeconomic zone . . "

These documents do not, of their own force, requireaction on the part of the United States. The Charterand the resolutions provide the international norms un-der which the United States and the territories maymutually decide the terms of their relationship. Thereis an obligation on the part of the United States to pro-mote the development of the territories while protect-ing their free choice of political status. This obligationis not inconsistent with the view of the territorial clauseas promoting the political and economic developmentof the territories.

The United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea

The United States has not signed the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea because of objectionsto its deep seabed mining provisions. Nevertheless, the

6SU.N, Charter, art. 73(b).WG. A, Res 1514, 15 U.N. GAOR Supp. 16, at 66 (1960).STG.A. Res. 1541, 15 U.N. GAOR SUpp. 16, at 29 (1960).WG, A, Res. 748 (VIII)( 1953).

‘WC. Res. 2183 (LIII)(1986).70G .A, Res, 41/23 (Question of American Samoa), G.A. Res. 41/24 (Ques-

tion of the United States Virgin Islands), G.A. Res 41/25 (Question of Guam),41 GAOR .%lpp. 53 (1986).

App. B—The Exclusive Economic Zone and U.S. Insular Territories 297

United States “will continue to exercise its rights andfulfill its duties in a manner consistent with internationallaw, including those aspects of the Convention whicheither codify customary international law or refine andelaborate concepts which represent an accommodationof the interests of all States and form a part of interna-t ional law. The presidential statement accompany-ing the EEZ proclamation contains similar language. 72The body of the Convention contains only one refer-ence to territories. Article 305(1) provides that self-gov-erning associated states and internally self-governing ter-ritories ‘ ‘which have competence over the mattersgoverned by this Convention including the competenceto enter treaties in respect of those matters’ may signthe convention. Accompanying Resolution III declaresthat in the case of territories that have not achieved aself-governing status recognized by the United Nations,the Convention’s provisions ‘‘shall be implemented forthe benefit of the people of the territory with a view topromoting their well-being and development. Theformer provision recognizes that territories may achievea degree of autonomy allowing them to participate ininternational matters. The Cook Islands and Niue,states associated with New Zealand, have signed theLaw of the Sea Treaty under Article 305( 1).73 Resolu-tion III restates the commitments of Article 73 of theCharter and of Resolutions 1514 and 1541. Article305(1) and Resolution III both reiterate internationalnorms compatible with U.S. territorial management.

Practices of Other Countries

Where there is no treaty or other explicit source, in-ternational law may be ascertained from ‘‘the customsand usages of civilized nations. "74 A 1978 study re-viewed the law and practice of six nations with respectto their overseas territories.

75 The study found as a gen-eral rule that metropolitan powers with overseas terri-tories or associated states: 1) have either given the pop-ulation of the overseas territory full and equalrepresentation in the national parliament and govern-ment or 2) have given the local government of the over-seas territory jurisdiction over the resources of the EEZ.The first category includes Denmark (Faroe Islands andGreenland), France (overseas departments and territo-ries), and Spain (Canary Islands). The second category

T] D~Cl~~~t,O~~ M~& upon signature of the Final Act at Montego Bay,Jama]ca, on Dec. 10, 1982–United States of America. (Quoted in Theuten-berg, The Evolution of the Law of the Sea, 223 [Dublin: Tycooly InternationalPublishing, 1984]).

7ZScarement On United States oceans Policy, 19 Weekly Cornp. pr’es. DOC

383 (1983).73sta[u~ Repfl, u N convention on the Law of the Sea, ST/LEG/SER E 14

at 701 (1985).“The Paquete Habana, 175 U S 677, 700 (1900),75T Franck, Con(ro] of Sea Resources by Semi-Autonomous States (Wash-

ington, DC Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1978)

includes the United Kingdom (Caribbean AssociatedStates), New Zealand (Cook Islands and Niue), and theNetherlands (Netherlands Antilles). While small, thisstudy includes all instances of overseas territories hav-ing no, or token, representation in the metropolitan gov-ernment. The study concludes that the United Statesrepresents the sole significant exception to the rule.American territories have neither full representation norlocal control of the EEZ.

While some information in the 1978 study is no longercurrent (for example, the Caribbean Associated Statesare now fully independent nations), its conclusion stillseems correct. British practice, as exemplified by therecent declaration of an exclusive fisheries zone aroundthe Falkland Islands, is for the national government toestablish policy and for the territorial government to im-plement it. Thus, the Falkland’s government will de-cide on the optimum level of fishing, issue licenses, andestablish and collect fees and taxes. London will pro-vide advice and technical assistance. 76

The practice of the Netherlands is similar. Mattersof broad policy are decided in the Hague, with consid-eration given to the preference of the Antilles. Explo-ration and management are in the hands of the Antilles,and the benefits from production would go to the is-lands. 77

The Territories Under International Law

Though relatively recent, the EEZ is a generally ac-cepted concept of international law. The United Statesbased its proclamation on international law and declaredits intent to follow that law in managing the zone. Thedeclarations of the United Nations, the Law of the SeaConvention, and the practice of other nations are not,of themselves, mandatory upon the United States. Takenas a whole, however, they outline international normsfor the treatment of territories. These norms suggest thatif territories are not fully integrated (and represented)in the national government, their natural resourcesshould be managed for the benefit of the local popu-lation.

Territorial Laws Affecting the EEZ

Geography, history, and culture bind the territoriesto the sea. All of them have adopted laws pertaining toactivities in the ocean. These range from coastal zonemanagement and water quality laws akin to thoseadopted by the States to broad claims of jurisdictionamounting to local EEZs.

TsCon\rersation with Robert Embleton, Second Secretary, British Embassy,

Washington, D C , Dec. 10, 19867TConI,erSatlon with Harold Henriquez, Netherlands Antilles Attache, Em-

bassy of the Netherlands, Washington, D C., Dec. 10, 1986


American Samoa’s water quality standards providefor protection of bays and open coastal waters to the 100fathom depth contour. A permit is required for anyactivity affecting water quality in these areas. 78

The U.S. Virgin Islands coastal zone managementprogram extends ‘‘to the outer limit of the TerritorialSea” (3 nautical miles). Its environmental policies callfor accommodating ‘‘offshore sand and gravel miningneeds in areas and in ways that will not adversely affectmarine resources and navigation. ’79 A permit to removematerial is required and may not be granted unless suchmaterial is not otherwise available at reasonable cost.Removal may not significantly alter the physical char-acteristics of the area on an immediate or long-term ba-sis. The Virgin Islands government collects a permit feeand a royalty on material sold.

The U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa do notassert their jurisdiction beyond the 3 nautical miles ofTerritorial Sea granted to them .80 The other three self-governing territories have taken steps to assure them-selves greater control of their marine resources.

By a law adopted in 1980, Guam defines its territoryas running 200 geographical miles seaward from the lowwater mark. Within this territory, Guam claims ‘ ‘ex-clusive rights to determine the conditions and terms ofall scientific research, management, exploration and ex-ploitation of all ocean resources and all sources of energyand prevention of pollution within the economic zone,including pollution from outside the zone which posesa threat within the zone. "81 In a letter accompanyingthe bill, the governor stated that, ‘‘[a]s a matter of pol-icy, the territory of Guam is claiming exclusive rightsto control the utilization of all ocean resources in a 200-mile zone surrounding the island. "82 Possible conflictswith Federal law were recognized, but the law was ap-proved ‘‘as a declaration of Territorial policies andgoals. Section 1001(b) of the proposed Guam Com-monwealth Act includes a similar claim to an EEZ.83

Puerto Rico claims “[o]wnership of the commercialminerals found in the soil and subsoil of Puerto Rico,its adjacent islands and in surrounding waters and sub-merged lands next to their coasts up to where the depthof the waters allows their exploitation and utilization,in an extension of not less than 3 marine leagues . . "84

This continental shelf claim extends beyond PuertoRico’s Territorial Sea. It combines the principles of ad-jacency and exploitability codified in the 1958 Conven-tion on the Continental Shelf.85 A statement of motives

7BAm, Samoa Admin. Code $$24.0201 to 24.0208 ( 1984).WV. I, Code Ann. tit. 12, $906(b)(7) (1982).80 See note 24, above.81Guam Code Ann. $402 ( 1980).Ezxd, , Compfler’s Comment.

%3ee note 29, above.a~p, R. Laws Ann. tit. 28, $111 ( 1985).8$15 U, fj, T, 471, T. I.A, S, No. 5578, 499 U. N.T. S. 311.

accompanying the 1979 amendments to Puerto Rico’smining law explains the Roman and Spanish law ante-cedents for government trusteeship of minerals. It alsopoints out that Section 8 of the Organic Act of 1917placed submerged lands under the control of the gov-ernment of Puerto Rico and gave the island’s legisla-ture the authority to make needed laws in this field ‘‘asit deems convenient. The legislature concluded that‘‘after 1917, the Federal Government has no title orjurisdiction over the submerged lands of Puerto Rico.The title is vested fully in Puerto Rico. It is up to theLegislature to determine the extent of said jurisdic-tion. "86

The most comprehensive territorial management pro-gram is that of the Northern Mariana Islands. TheCommonwealth’s Marine Sovereignty Act of 1980 es-tablishes archipelagic baselines, claims a 12-mile Ter-ritorial Sea, and declares a 200-mile EEZ.87 The Sub-merged Lands Act applies from the line of ordinary hightide to the outer limit line of the EEZ. It requires licensesand leases for the exploration, development, and extrac-tion of petroleum and all other minerals in submergedlands.88 The latter statute has been implemented bydetailed rules and regulations.

These claims are based on the statutory law of theTrust Territory of the Pacific Islands which confirmedthe earlier Japanese law ‘‘that all marine areas belowthe ordinary high watermark belong to the govern-ment." 89 A subsequent order of the Department of theInterior transferred public lands, among them sub-merged lands, to the constituent districts of the TrustTerritory, including the Northern Mariana Islands. go

In addition, Section 801 of the Covenant provides fortransfer of the Trust Territory’s real property intereststo the Northern Marianas no later than the termina-tion of the trusteeship.

There is some question as to whether the conditionalinclusion of the Northern Marianas in the U.S. EEZProclamation (’‘to the extent consistent with the Cove-nant and the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement’implies recognition of local claims. There is also a ques-tion as to whether U.S. territorial law would permit thislocal claim to survive the transition to U.S. sovereignty.The Supreme Court has held that ownership of sub-merged lands is vested in the Federal Government as‘‘a function of national external sovereignty, essen-tial to national defense and foreign affairs. 91 When thetrusteeship over the Northern Marianas ended, theUnited States extended its sovereignty over the islands

861979 p,R, Laws 279, 281.aTCommonwe~th of the Marianas Code, tit. 2, $1101-1143 ( 1984).sscommonwe~th of the Marianas Code, tit. 2, $1211-1231 (1984).agTrust Territory Code, tit. 67, $2 (1970).goDepafiment of the Interior Order 2969 (Dec. 28, 1974)

91 United Stafes V, California, 332 U.S. 19, 34 (1947).

App. B—The Exclusive Economic Zone and U.S. Insular Territories 299

and became responsible for their foreign affairs and de-fense. The situation of the Northern Mariana Islandsmay be comparable to that of Texas, which was admit-ted to the Union after having been an independent coun-try. When it joined the United States, Texas relin-quished its sovereignty and, with it, her proprietaryclaims to submerged lands in the Gulf of Mexico. 92

In 1985, the Northern Mariana Islands Commissionon Federal Laws suggested that Congress convey to theMarianas submerged lands to an extent of 3 nauticalmiles ‘‘without prejudice to any claims the NorthernMariana Islands may have to submerged lands seawardof those conveyed by the legislation. ’93 The Commis-sion recognized that there are strong arguments for andagainst the Northern Marianas’ continued ownershipof submerged lands after termination of the trusteeship,but it pointed out that it “makes little sense” for theUnited States to transfer title to the islands, only to havethat title revert to the United States under the doctrine

gz~nlre~ sra~es v, Texas, 339 U.S. 707 ( 1950).g$second Interim Report tO the Congress of the United States, 172. The Com-

mission is appointed by the President under Section 504 of the Covenant tomake recommendations to Congress as to which laws of the United States should

aPPIY to the Commonwealth and which should not,

of United States v. Texas .94 The Commonwealth is stillnegotiating with the Executive Branch over the accept-ance or modification of its marine claims.

Territorial Ocean Laws

The history and culture of the territories are intert-wined with the ocean. Some of them have acted to as-sert their own claims to manage ocean resources beyondthe territorial sea, although their authority to do so isuncertain under U.S. territorial law. The present situ-ation is one of latent conflict which could become ac-tive when marine prospecting or development is pro-posed. Should the United States decide that Federaljurisdiction is exclusive, an explorer or miner may begreatly delayed while Federal and territorial authoritiesargue their positions in court. A Congressional resolu-tion of this conflict would require action using the ple-nary powers of the Constitution’s territorial clause,tempered by the goals of American and internationalterritorial law, and the political and economic develop-ment of the territories and their people.

“Id. , 178, 179.

Appendix C

Mineral Laws of the United States

The five legal systems discussed below illustrate thechanges in national minerals policy over the past cen-tury. One major shift was from a policy of free disposal,intended to foster development of the frontier, to a leas-ing policy intended to provide a return to the public andto foster conservation by controlling the rate of develop-ment. A second change resulted in a balancing of miner-al values against other values for the land in question.Thus, the Mining Law of 1872 requires only that theland be valuable for minerals, but the leasing laws al-low a lease only after a prospector shows that the landis ‘‘chiefly valuable’ for the mineral to be developed.The leasing laws, and, to a greater extent, the OuterContinental Shelf Lands Act also require considerationof economic and environmental impacts, State and lo-cal concerns, and the relative value of mining and otherexisting or potential uses of the area. A third changewas a recognition that different types of minerals couldbest be developed under different management systems.The hardrock minerals remain under a system that re-wards the prospector’s risk-taking, the fuel resources areleased under a system that takes national needs and pri-orities into account, and common construction materi-als are made readily available under a simplified salesprocedure. When creating a legal regime for the mineralresources of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), theUnited States can benefit from long experience underseveral diverse systems.

The experimental nature of much of today’s explo-ration and recovery equipment and the gaps in ourknowledge of the physical and biological resources ofthe EEZ indicate that it may take years of research andexploration before an informed decision to proceed withcommercial exploitation can be made. A legal systemmust reasonably accommodate the risk being taken bythe mineral industry under these circumstances. At thesame time, the system must also accommodate impor-tant public interests and ensure a fair market value forthe public resources. The law must also consider the na-tional and State interests in ocean development and de-fine the respective Federal and State roles.

Onshore Mineral Management

Federal onshore minerals are managed under threeprincipal legal systems: the Mining Law of 1872, theMineral Leasing Act of 1920 and related leasing laws,and the Surface Resources Act of 1955 (table C-1). Thelaws do not apply uniformly to all Federal lands, anda mineral may be subject to different rules in different

places, including some cases where there appears to beno applicable law at all.

The Mining Law of 1872

The Mining Law of 1872 is applicable to “hardrock”minerals in the public domain in most States. Like otherlaws of its era, it was intended to expand developmentof the Western States by making Federal lands availa-ble to persons who occupy and develop them. It adopt-ed a system that was developed under State law and localcustom between the start of the California gold rush in1849 and passage of the first mining law in 1866.

All valuable mineral deposits and the lands in whichthey are found are free and open to exploration, occu-pation, and purchase. State mining laws and customsof the mining districts are recognized to the extent thatthey do not conflict with Federal law. The Mining Lawoutlines the requirements for locating, marking, andevaluating claims; sets a $100 minimum for annual ex-penditures on labor or improvements; and provides fortransfer of ownership to the miner when these condi-tions are met. Depending on the type of deposit, pay-ment of $2.50 or $5.00 per acre is required. TheGovernment receives no royalties or other payments forthe minerals.

In its original form, the Mining Law allowed for thegreatest individual initiative and the least Governmentregulation. Over the years, its operation has becomemore restricted. First, the Government has withdrawnextensive areas from the operation of the Mining Lawwhen they were needed for other purposes (militaryreservations, national parks, dam and reservoir sites,etc.). Second, certain minerals were excluded from thelaw and made available under other programs. Third,mining operations are subject to environmental andreclamation requirements and varying degrees of reviewand approval by the surface management agency. Pri-or to issuance of a patent, a claimant’s use of a miningclaim is limited to that required for mineral exploration,development, and production. Nonconflicting surfaceuses by others may continue.

Mineral Leasing Acts

Concern over resource depletion and monopolizationin the early years of the 20th century lead to withdrawalsof coal, oil, phosphate, and other fuel and nonmetallicminerals from entry under the Mining Law. In 1920Congress passed the Mineral Leasing Act, making these

300

Table C-1.-Comparison of Federal Mineral Statutes

Entry and patent system Mineral leasing systems Materials sale system Continental shelf leasing system Deep seabed system

Law and General Mining Law of 1872 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 Materials Act of 1947 (30 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Deep Seabed Hard MineralsApplicability (30 U.S.C. 22 etseq.): hard rock

minerals in the public domainin all States except Alabama,Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,Missouri, Oklahoma (exceptceded Indian lands), and Wis-consin. Withdrawals and res-ervations make specifiedareas unavailable or condition-ally available.

Initiative Miner

Prospecting “Free and Open”

Establishing Discovery of a valuable de-Tenure posit within limits of claim.

Marking and recording claimas required by Federal andState law.

MaintainingTenure

Area Limits

$100 worth of labor or im-provements annually on eachclaim until a patent is issued.

Lode claims: 1500 feet x 600feet. Placer claims: 20 acres orup to 160 acres for an associa-tion claim. No limit on thenumber of claims that a per-son may locate.

(30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.): coal,oil, oil shale, gas, gilsonite,phosphate, potash, and so-dium in the public domain anddisposed lands in whichmineral rights were retained.Mineral Leasing Act for Ac-quired Land (30 U.S.C. 351 etseq.): above minerals and sul-phur in acquired lands. Reor-ganization Plan No. 3 of 1946(60 Stat. 1097): all otherminerals in acquired nationalforests and grasslands.

Miner or the Department ofthe Interior

By permit or license from theDepartment of the Interior.Prospecting permits not is-sued for oil or gas.Entering into a lease. Non-competitive lease to first qual-ified applicant where mineralpotential is unknown. Pref-erence-right lease to prospec-tor who discovers a valuabledeposit. Competitive bid forleases in known mineralareas.

Compliance with terms oflease, including payments,diligent exploration and devel-opment, safety, resource con-servation, and environmentalprotection.

Coal: size of individual leasedetermined by Secretary ofthe Interior, 46,080 acres inany one State, 100,000 acresnationwide. Sodium: 2,560acres in any one lease, 5,120acres in any one State, may beraised to 15,360 acres if nec-essary for economic mining.Phosphate: 20,480 acres na-tionwide. Oil or gas: 640 acresper lease unit, 246,080 acres inany one State except Alaskawhere the limit is 300,000acres in each of two leasingdistricts. Oil shale orgilsonite:5,120 acres. SU/phUc in Loui-siana and New Mexico, 640acres per lease. Potash: 2,560acres per lease.

U.S.C. 601-604): “common va-rieties” of sand, stone, gravel,cinders, and clay on publiclands. Surface Resources Actof 1955(30U.S.C.611-615): ex-cludes above minerals fromthe scope of the General Min-ing Law.

Miner

Not applicable

Disposal by sale. Use of a sitemay be communal or nonex-clusive. Miner does not ac-quire a property right.

Not applicable

Not applicable

Act (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356): allminerals in the submerged landsof the outer continental shelf be-yond the territorial waters of the50 States.

Miner or the Department of theInterior, pursuant to a 5-yearleasing program.

Lessee’s exploration plan, sub-ject to approval by the Depart-ment of the Interior.

Entering into a lease granted af-ter competitive bidding.

Compliance with terms of lease,including payment, rate of pro-duction, safety, protection offish, wildlife, and environment.

Oil or gas: 5,760 acres unless alarger area is necessary to com-prise a reasonable e c o n o m i cproduction unit. Sulphur andother minerals: size determinedby the Secretary of the Interior.

Resources Act (30 U.S.C. 1401-1473): manganese nodules onthe deep seabed outside thecontinental shelf or resourcejurisdiction of any nation.

Miner

By license from the NationalOceanic and AtmosphericAdministration.

Obtaining a permit upon dem-onstrating financial and tech-nological capability.

Diligent development, mini-mum expenditures, maintain-ing recovery for the durationof the permit.

Size and location chosen byminer. Must comprise a logi-cal mining unit.

Table C-1.—Comparison of Federal Mineral Statutes—Continued


Term An unpatented mining claimmay be held indefinitely.

Assignability An unpatented mining claimmay be leased, sold, mort-gaged, or inherited.

Payment $2.50 or $5.00 per acre patentfee.

Coal: 20 years and as longthereafter as coal is producedannually in commercial quan-tities. Phosphate and Potash:20 years and for as long there-after as lessee complies withterms and conditions of lease.Oil and gas: 5 years for com-petitive and 10 years for non-competitive leases and for aslong thereafter as there is pro-duction in paying quantities.Oil shale: indeterminateperiod. Sodium: 20 years witha preference right to renew foradditional 10 year periods.All or part of a lease may beassigned with Department ofInterior permission.

Minimum rents and royaltiesestablished by statute, actualrates set by competitive bid.Coal: rent set by regulation(currently $3.00 per acre), min-imum royalty of 12.5 percentfor surface mines, may be lessfor underground mines, cashbonus. Phosphate: minimumrent $.25 per acre in the firstyear, $.50 in the second year,and $1.00 per acre in the thirdand subsequent years, cred-ited against a minimum roy-alty of 5 percent of gross valueof output. Oil and gas: mini-mum annual rent $.50 per acre,rising to $1.00 per acre afteroil or gas in paying quantitiesare discovered, minimum roy-alty of 12.5 percent, cash bo-nus. Oil shale: minimum an-nual rent of $.50 per acre,credited against a royalty setby the Secretary. Rent androyalty may be waived for thefirst 5 years to encourage pro-duction. Sodium and potash:minimum rent $.25 per acre inthe first year, $.50 in the sec-ond year and $1.00 in the thirdand subsequent years cred-ited against a minimum roy-alty of 2 percent of gross valueof production.

Not applicable

Not applicable

Fair market value of materialtaken. No charge to govern-mental and nonprofit entities.

Oil and gas: 5 years (10 years ifSecretary finds that a longerperiod is necessary to encour-age development) and for aslong thereafter as oil or gas isproduced in paying quantities.Sulphur: 10 years and as longthereafter as sulphur isproduced in paying quantities.Other minerals: prescribed bySecretary.

A lease may be assigned withDepartment of Interior per-mission.

Oil and gas: competitive biddingin which the royalty rate, cashbonus, work commitment, orprofit share or any combinationof them maybe the biddable fac-tor. Minimum royalty of 12.5 per-cent. Sulphur: competitive bidon cash bonus, minimum royaltyof 5 percent of gross value ofproduction, rent prescribed bySecretary. Other minerals: com-petitive bid on cash bonus;royalty and rent prescribed bySecretary.

20 years and for as long there-after as minerals are recov-ered annually in commercialquantities.

A permit or license may betransferred with NOAA ap-proval.

Administrative fee to coverthe cost of reviewing andprocessing applications. Taxof 3.75 percent on imputedvalue of resources removedpursuant to permit.

Table C-1.-Comparison of Federal Mineral Statutes—Continued

Entry and patent system Mineral Ieasing systems Materials sale system Continental shelf Ieasing system deep seabed system-.Allocation of Not specifiedIncome

Conflicting Uses Exclusive possession of thesurface limited to use for min-ing purposes. Non-conflictingsurface uses by others maycontinue.

Environmental Not specifiedProtection

On public domain: 50 percentto State, 40 percent to recla-mation fund, 10 percent toU.S. Treasury. /n Alaska: 90percent to State. On acquiredland: in the same manner asother income from the af-fected lands (varies by man-agement agency).Coal leases must be compati-ble with a comprehensive landuse plan considering the ef-fects on the surrounding areaor community. All leases onacquired land require the con-sent of the surface manage-ment agency and are subjectto conditions assuring thatthe primary purpose for whichthe lands were acquired ismaintained. No leasing in na-tional parks or monuments orin incorporated munici-palities.

Coal leases may not begranted without considerationof environmental impacts.Otherwise, not specified.

In the same manner as otheri n c o m e f r o m t h e a f f e c t e dlands (varies by managementagency).

Consent of surface manage-ment agency required. Ex-cludes land in national parksand monuments and Indianlands.

Disposal of materials can’t bedetrimental to the public in-terest.

Credited to miscellaneousreceipts of the U.S. Treasury.

Leasing program must considereconomic, social, and environ-mental values and potential im-pacts on fisheries, navigation,and other resources of the outercontinental shelf.

The leasing program must con-sider the environmental value ofrenewable and nonrenewable re-sources and the environmentalimpact of exploration and devel-opment. The timing and locationof leasing must balance the po-tential for environmental dam-age, the potential for the discov-ery of oil and gas, and thepotential for adverse impacts onthe coastal zone. Detailed envi-ronmental studies required priorto leasing. Monitoring continuesduring the term of the lease toidentify and measure changes inenvironmental quality.

Fee credited to miscellaneousreceipts of the U.S. Treasury.Tax credited to Deep SeabedRevenue Sharing Trust Fund.

Permits and licenses are ex-clusive as against any U.S. orreciprocating State citizen.Activities may not unreasona-bly interfere with freedom ofthe seas, conflict with any in-ternational obligation of theU. S., lead to a breach of thepeace, or pose a safetyhazard.

NOAA must prepare an envi-ronmental impact statementwhen issuing a permit orlicense. Stable referenceareas are to be established byinternational agreement. Allpermits and licenses are con-ditioned on protection of theenvironment and conservationof resources.

Table C-1.—Comparison of Federal Mineral Statutes—Continued


State and Public Activities are subject to State Statute may not be construedInvolvement and local laws not inconsist- as affecting the right of State

ent with the laws of the United or local governments to regu-States. late or tax lessees of the

United States. Land use plansfor coal leasing are to be pre-pared in consultation withState agencies and the public.Proposed coal leases in na-tional forests must be sub-mitted to the governor of theaffected State for review. Ifthe governor objects, leasingis delayed for six monthswhile the Secretary recon-siders the lease on the basisof the governor’s comments.

Disposals from land with-drawn in aid of a State, mu-nicipality, or public agencycan be made only with theconsent of the State, munici-pality, or agency.

State civil and criminal laws notinconsistent with Federal lawapply to those areas of the con-tinental shelf which would bewithin the State if its boundariesextended seaward. The Secre-tary shall enforce safety, envi-ronmental, and conservationlaws in cooperation with theStates. State comments are tobe invited and considered whengas and oil leasing programs areprepared and when proposedlease sales and developmentand production plans are beingreviewed. State recommenda-tions are to be accepted if theSecretary determines that theyprovide a reasonable balance be-tween the national interest andthe well-being of State citizens.Activities affecting land or wateruse in the coastal zone of a Statehaving a coastal zone manage-ment plan require State con-currence.

Public notice and comment(including hearings) are re-quired when permits andlicenses are issued, trans-ferred, or modified.


App. C—Mineral Laws of the United States ● 305

deposits available only through prospecting permits andleases. This move was a major departure from earlierpolicy, replacing free entry and disposal with a discre-tionary system. As initially adopted, prospecting per-mits could be issued to the first qualified applicant wish-ing to explore lands whose mineral potential wasunknown. Discovery of a valuable deposit entitled theprospector to a preference-right lease to develop and pro-duce the mineral if the land was found to be chiefly val-uable for that purpose. Known mineral lands could beleased by advertisement, competitive bid, or other meth-ods adopted by the Secretary of the Interior.

Prospecting permits are no longer available for oil,gas, or coal. Lands known to contain these substancesmay be leased only by competitive bid. Non-competitiveleases may be issued to the first qualified applicant forlands outside the known geologic structure of a produc-ing oil or gas field. The Secretary has broad discretionto impose conditions for diligence, safety, environmentalprotection, rents and royalties, and other factors neededto protect the interest of the United States and the pub-lic welfare.

Like the Mining Law of 1872, the Mineral LeasingAct of 1920 is applicable only to the public domain (forthe most part, land which has been retained in Federalownership since its original acquisition as part of theterritory of the United States). The Mineral Leasing Actfor Acquired Land was enacted in 1947 and made thefuel, fertilizer, and chemical minerals in acquired landavailable under the provisions of the Leasing Act of1920. Permits and leases on acquired land (mostly na-tional forests in the Eastern States) can be issued onlywith the consent of the surface management agency andmust be consistent with the primary purpose for whichthe land was acquired. Hardrock minerals in acquirednational forests and grasslands are available under sim-ilar conditions.

Materials Sales System

The Materials Act of 1947 made “common varieties’of sand, stone, gravel, cinders, and clay in Federal landsavailable for sale at fair market value or by competitivebidding. The Surface Resources Act of 1955 removedthese materials from entry and patent under the Gen-eral Mining Law. The miner does not acquire a prop-erty right to the source of these materials, and the useof a site may be communal or nonexclusive. Govern-mental and nonprofit entities are not charged for mate-rial taken for public or nonprofit purposes.

Offshore Mineral Management

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)was adopted in 1953 and provides for the leasing ofmineral resources in submerged lands that are beyondState waters and subject to U.S. jurisdiction and con-trol (table C-1 ). The law’s primary focus is on oil, gas,and sulphur but Section 8(k) authorizes the Secretaryof the Interior to lease other minerals also occurring inthe outer continental shelf.

Oil and gas leases are granted to the highest bidderpursuant to a 5-year leasing program. The program isbased on a determination of national energy needs andmust also consider the effects of leasing on other re-sources, regional development and energy needs, indus-try interest in particular areas, and environmental sen-sitivity and marine productivity of different areas of thecontinental shelf. The size, timing, and location of pro-posed lease sales and lessees’ proposed development andproduction plans are subject to review by affected Stateand local governments. Recommendations from Stateand local governments must be accepted if the Secre-tary determines that they provide for a reasonable bal-ance between the national interest and the well-beingof local citizens. A flexible bidding system is providedin which the royalty rate, cash bonus, work commit-ment, profit share, or any combination of them may bethe biddable factor.

A comprehensive program is not required forminerals other than oil and gas, and bidding for leasesis limited to the highest cash bonus. It is unclear to whatextent the law’s coordination and environmental pro-tection provisions apply to these other minerals.Leases under OCSLA are not explicitly limited to U.S.citizens by the statute, but such a limitation has beenimposed by regulation. See 30 CFR 256.35(b).

Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act

The fifth legal system was adopted in 1980 as an in-terim measure pending the entry into force of a law ofthe sea treaty binding on the United States. The DeepSeabed Hard Minerals Resources Act (DSHMRA) ap-plies to the exploration for and commercial recovery ofmanganese nodules in the seabed beyond the continen-tal shelf or resource jurisdiction of any nation. In con-trast with the other laws, where the United States as-serts jurisdiction based on territorial control, DSHMRA’s


jurisdiction is based on the power of the United Statesto regulate the activities of its citizens outside its ter-ritory.

Licenses for exploration and permits for commercialrecovery are granted by the Administrator of the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forareas whose size and location are chosen by the appli-cant. The applicant must prove financial and techno-logical capability to carry out the proposed work, andthe designated area must comprise a ‘‘logical miningunit. The Administrator is required to prepare an envi-ronmental impact statement prior to granting a licenseor permit. To help gauge the effects of mining on themarine environment, stable reference areas are to beestablished by international agreement. Permits andlicenses are conditioned on protection of environmentalquality and conservation of the mineral resource.

Because the United States does not claim ownershipof the seabed or minerals involved, DSHMRA does notrequire rent or royalties. Only an administrative fee,sufficient to cover the cost of reviewing applications, is

charged. In addition, a 3.75 percent tax on the valueof the resource recovered is levied. Proceeds of the taxare assigned to a trust fund to be used if U.S. contribu-tions are required once an international seabed treatyis in effect.

All commercial recovery must be by vessels docu-mented under U.S. law. At least one U.S. vessel mustbe used to transport minerals from each mining site.Land processing of recovered minerals must be withinthe United States unless this requirement would makethe operation uneconomical. Minerals processed else-where must be returned to the United States for domes-tic use if the national interest so requires.

Before the United States ratifies an internationalseabed treaty, DSHMRA calls for reciprocal agreementswith nations that adopt compatible seabed regulations.The agreements would require mutual recognition ofthe rights granted under any license or permit issuedby a reciprocating state. The United States has signedagreements with France, Italy, Japan, the United King-dom, and West Germany.

Appendix D

Ocean Mining Laws of Other Countries

This appendix summarizes the seabed mining lawsof 10 countries. Not all of these countries have declaredExclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); thus, their laws maybe based on continental shelf or territorial claims. Thesestatutes illustrate the range of choices available for de-veloping marine minerals. The general comparison thatfollows analyzes the various provisions shared by manyof the statutes, but three provisions in particular are ofprimary interest for assessing the U.S. seabed miningregime:

1. allocating the right to mine,2. payment for the right to mine, and3. the division of responsibility between national and

state or provincial authorities.Allocating the right to mine includes selecting the

location and size of a mining site and choosing a mineoperator. In all of the countries surveyed, the initiativefor prospecting or mining lies with the applicant, whomust prove technical and financial capacity for carry-ing out the proposed work. Competing applications forthe same area are generally assigned on a first-come ba-sis, but Australia, for one, is considering work-programbidding or cash bidding for cases where some competi-tion is needed. The applicant-initiative system is modifiedby general requirements for shoreline and environ-mental protection, area and time limits, and proj-ect-specific conditions imposed after an application isreviewed.

Payment for the privilege to mine may include ap-plication fees, rents, royalties on the value of recoveredminerals, a tax on gross or net income, or a combina-tion of these. The rate of payment may be set by lawor negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Some countriesprovide for periodic adjustment based on economic con-ditions or the market for the mineral being recovered.In addition to paying for the minerals removed, minersmay be required to spend funds each year for explora-tion or development. Spending above the minimum an-nual requirement may be credited to future years, whilespending less may require paying the difference to thegovernment or forfeiting the right to prospect or mine.The United States appears to be the only country whichhas a cash competitive bidding process to award leasesin offshore areas.

Three of the countries included in this review—Aus-tralia, West Germany, and Canada, have a federal sys-tem of government. Australia is developing a system ofjoint authority over the continental shelf beyond the ter-ritorial sea; the states or territories have jurisdiction overthe territorial sea. In West Germany, the states regu-late activities within territorial waters while the national

government has exclusive jurisdiction over the continen-tal shelf beyond the territorial limit. Canada has not yetenacted offshore mining legislation, but the Ministry ofEnergy, Mines, and Resources is drafting a proposedstatute. A division of authority between the national andprovincial governments will be part of the new law.

Australia

Laws●

●

●

Australia claims a 3-mile territorial seal Under theCoastal Waters (State Powers) Act of 1981, onshoremining legislation in the states of New South Wales,Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia,and the Northern Territory can be applied offshore.Activities would be regulated according to stand-ard terms, including environmental conditions.Western Australia is currently revising a modelState Minerals (Submerged Lands) bill, particu-larly in regard to registration and transfer of leases.A version to be circulated to the States and Com-monwealth may be ready in early 1987. Althoughsome states are concerned that they cannot proc-ess company applications, offshore state legislationwill most likely not be enacted before 1988.2

In 1967, Australia passed a continental shelf act,based on Geneva provisions, for petroleum. In1981, the Submerged Lands Act, which has a “de-gree of complementarily” with petroleum legisla-tion3, was passed to cover other seabed minerals.4

However, the complementary state legislation nec-essary to implement it has not been passed yet.5

Australia has not declared an EEZ.6

Jurisdiction

● Territorial waters: The adjoining state/territory hasjurisdiction over minerals development.7

● Continental shelf: Offshore activities are adminis-tered by a Joint Authority, including a Common-

I Law of the Sea Bulletin, December 1983, No. 2, Off Ice of Special Repre-sentative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea, United Nations (83-35821), p. 13.

‘Letter from David Truman, Assistant Secretary, Minerals Policy Branch,to OTA, Oct. 3, 1986.

‘Letter from the Australian Department of Resousres and Energy to OTAthrough Science and Technology Counselor J .R. Hlubucek, Australian Em-bassy, May 28, 1987,

‘Letter from Geoffrey Dabb, Legal Counsel, Australian Embassy to OTA,Oct. 6, 1986.

‘Truman, op. cit.bLaw of the Sea Bulletin, 1983, op. cit , p. 4.7Hlubucek, op. cit,

307


wealth Minister for Resources and Energy and aState Mines Minister. a The adjoining State Min-ister supervises day-to-day administration andserves as an industry contact. The Commonwealthminister is consulted on important issues and hasthe final authority in cases of disagreement. g

Permit Process

● Exploration: If a company wishes to explore forminerals (defined to include sand, gravel, clay,limestone, rock, evaporates, shale, oil-shale, andcoal, but not petroleum10) in the ocean, it must ap-ply to the Designated Authority (a State Ministercharged with the responsibility by that State’sParliament 11) for an exploration permit. If the areaof the application is on the seaward side of the outerlimit of the territorial sea, the Joint Authority de-cides whether or not to grant the permit. 12 The ap-plication must be accompanied by a work and ex-penditure plan, and information regarding thetechnical qualifications of the applicant, and tech-nical advice and financial resources available to theapplicant.

● Exploitation: Same14

Terms

● Exploration: A fee of $3,000 (Australian dollars)is charged for an application to explore any num-ber of blocks less than 500 (A block is bounded byadjacent minutes of longitude and latitude). Thepermit lasts for 2 years, and gives the right to ex-plore and take samples of specified minerals.15 Apermit can be renewed 4 times, for up to 2 yearseach time, for up to 75 percent of the area in thepermit being renewed. An application must be ac-companied by a report on past and projected workand expenditures and a fee of $300.16

● Exploitation: Application for a production licenseis done in a manner very similar to that for an ex-ploration permit. Once granted, it lasts for 21years. An annual rent of $100 per block is charged.Royalty rates are set by the Joint Authority; thevalue of the exploited mineral may be consideredin setting the rate.

17 Within the territorial sea,

‘1981 Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act, Section 8.‘Hlubucek, op. cit.101981 Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act, Section 3.1 i Hlubucek, op. cit.121981 Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act, Section 23.131 bid., Section 24.I+ Ibid., Sections 31 and 32.t$Ibid,, Sections 26 and 27.lbIbid, , Sections 28 and 29.I TIbld,, Sections 31 ’35.

royalties are shared with the Commonwealth. 18 Anapplication for a permit renewal must be accom-panied by a $300 fee. 19

There is no competitive allocation mechanismin the unproclaimed Minerals (Submerged Lands)Act as it stands. However, at the recent meetingof Commonwealth and State officials, it was agreedthat provisions should be made for competitive al-location. Generally, permits will be allocated on afirst-come basis. In cases where some competitionis needed, competitive allocation will generally usea work program bidding system, but provision fora cash bidding approach is being considered.

The Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act does notcontain a royalty regime. At the officials’ meeting,it was agreed that the endorsement of Ministerswould be sought for the adjacent state to apply theironshore royalty regime to minerals won from thesea bed within the outer limit of the territorial sea.For minerals won from the sea bed on the seawardside of this limit, the commonwealth intends to ap-ply a profits-based royalty. State royalties vary withthe state and the mineral concerned, and in somecases profits-based royalties may be used, in othercases ad-valorem royalties or set tonnage rate royal-ties may be set. However, this does not precludethe states from opting for a profits-based royalty.

Conditions

Unreasonable interference with navigation, fishing,conservation of resources, and other lawful operationsis prohibited.20 Environmental assessment is generallythe concern of the adjacent state. However, where min-ing impinges on commonwealth functions, assessmentmay be required by the appropriate commonwealth au-thority (there are arrangements to ensure that the assess-ments can be carried out jointly in most cases).

Section 105 further delineates regulations which theGovernor General may promulgate under this law, con-cerning matters such as safety and conservation. 21

Activities

Australia has explored for tin, monazite, phosphorite,rutile, and zircon .22 Private companies have been grantedexploration licenses under current state onshore min-ing acts for aggregate and mineral sands off the coast

‘8 H1ubucek, op. cit.191981 Minera]s (Submerged Lands) Act, Section 36.*“Ibid., Section 75.‘l Ibid.22P. Ha]e and P. Mcbren, “A Preliminary Assessment of Unconsolidated

Mineral Resources in tbe Canadian Offshore, The Canadian &fining andA4etallurgicaf Bulletin, September 1984, p, 10,

App. D—Ocean Mining Laws of Other Countries ● 309

of New South Wales. Production licenses have also beenissued for dredging limestone off the Queensland andWestern Australian coasts. Permit applications havebeen received for areas off the Western Australia andNorthern Territory coasts for which the minerals havenot been

Publictation is

Laws

specified”.sector involvement in exploration and exploi-not expected .23

Canada

● Canada claims a 12-mile territorial sea.● Continental shelf: Legislation was passed in June,

1969, as the Oil and Gas Production and Conser-vation Act.

● Canada has not declared an EEZ, but it does havea 200-mile fisheries zone. 24

● Currently, regulations for offshore mining couldbe promulgated under the Public Lands GrantsActs (The Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Re-sources has jurisdiction south of 60°; the Ministryof Indian and Northern Affairs has jurisdictionnorth of 60 O). However, the Ministry of Energy,Mines, and Resources is in the process of draftinglegislation which would be specifically applicableto offshore mining of hard minerals; the objectiveis to develop an ‘ ‘adequate basis in law’ for oceanmining. The law will address administration andmanagement, disposition of mineral rights, royal-ties, and environment and fisheries. Plans call forthe legislation to be written by the end of 1987; theCabinet will make the final decision as to whetherthe new legislation should be introduced in Parlia-ment. The recent Mineral and Metals Policy ofCanada officially announced the Government in-tent to establish a legal and regulatory regime tomaximize benefits from offshore mining. It seeksto develop ‘‘a simple, uniform, cooperative manage-ment system for mining development activities acrossall areas of the Canadian Continental Shelf. ’25

Jurisdiction

The Canadians hope to formulate a regulatoryscheme that can be applied regardless of who has juris-diction over mining activities. However, the desiredmechanism is one of cooperation with the provinces.

The Canadians take a ‘‘single window approach’ toregulation, allowing companies to apply to a single gov-

- - - - —2312aw, of t he Sea BuUetin, 1 9 8 3 , O p . Clt., P 11

Z+”rhe Tcrrltorla] sea and Fishing Zones Act, as amended, 1979.ZsThe Mlnera] and .Metals Policy of the Government of Canada, Depart-

ment of Energy, Mines, and Resources, May 1987, p 8

ernment agency for exploration and/or exploitation per-mits. The rationale for this approach is that a simpler,stream-lined permitting process will encourage indus-try activity.

Permit Process

Ž Exploration: Companies must submit a proposalto the appropriate agency. This agency in turn fol-lows the environmental assessment and reviewprocess which allows the contact agency to com-municate with the Departments of Environment,Fisheries and Oceans, and Transport for projectapproval. However, the contact agency has finalauthority to approve or disapprove the project.This approach reflects the Canadian desire to treatenvironmental concerns as mandatory concernsand of equal importance with economic develop-ment. Thus,ronment areplanning.

Conditions

Environmental

potential negative effects on the envi-reviewed at an early stage of project

conditions are considered through theEnvironmental Assessment and Review Process.

The government sees itself as “facilitator” of en-trepreneurial interests. As facilitator, it has two mainfunctions: 1) to eliminate structural barriers, i.e. by cre-ating a regulatory scheme (since the lack of one is seenas a barrier to activity), and 2) to provide fundamentalinformation about ocean mining.

Activities

Currently, mining activity is “on hold. ” The gov-ernment will not prevent anyone from exploring, butis not issuing any mining permits. However, the gov-ernment is suggesting companies submit mining appli-cations, to protect any ‘ ‘first in line’ advantage whenapplications are processed. In the past, sand and gravelwere mined in the Beaufort Sea to construct oil drillingplatforms. Permits issued for this activity were subjectto requirements equivalent to obtaining land usepermits.

France

Laws

● France claims a 12-mile territorial sea. 26

● France declared its rights over the continental shelfon December 30, 1968.27

lsLaW, of the Sea Bulletin, 1983, O p Clf. , p. 31.

27cont1nental Shelf I~w, Dec. 30, 1968 (no 68- 1181)


Ž France declared an EEZ on July 16, 1976. The lawstates that the provisions of the Continental Shelflaw are applicable to the EEZ.

Jurisdiction

● Continental shelf: The central government appearsto have complete jurisdiction over the continentalshelf. The application of the continental shelf lawis to be set by decree of the Conseil d’Etat.28 TheDirecteur des Mines and the Directeur des Car-burants, supervised by the Conseil General desMines, administer French mining laws. All are lo-cated within the Ministere du Developpement In-dustriel et Scientifique.29

Permit Process

● Exploration or exploitation: Permits must be ac-companied by a work program, submitted 45 daysin advance of the proposed activity. The programis reviewed by a commission, including represent-atives from the Ministries of Economy and Fi-nances, Telecommunication, and Maritime Policy.The chief of mines may solicit the opinion of theserepresentatives in writing; however, if anyone ob-jects to the proposal, the representatives must con-vene.30

Terms

Ž Exploration: Nonexclusive prospecting permits areissued. 31 [Details regarding duration, rights, sizeand fees are unknown. ]

● Exploitation: There are three types of mining ti-tles: 1) previsional authorization pending the grantof a concession, 2) a mining concession, and 3) ex-ploitation permit. Concessions are free and last inperpetuity. Permits are valid for 5 years, renewa-ble for 2 more 5-year terms; a small indemnitymust be paid to the owner of the surface area andthe grantee is responsible for any damages result-ing from his activities.

32 A fixed royalty fee per met-ric ton is required for all minerals exploited; thevalue of the particular metal is taken into consid-eration. A Finance Law fixes the rate, as well asa formula for dividing revenues between centraland local authorities33

281bid, , Afiiclc 38.29N, Ely, fjummv of Mining and Petroleum Laws of the World, Bureau

of Mines Information Circular, 1974, U.S. Department of the Interior, Part5, Europe, IC, 8613.

JO~cree of May 6, 1971 (no. 7 1-360), Articles 7 ad 8

31 N E]y, Op. cit.321bid,s~Continental Shelf Law, 1968, op. cit. Articles 21 and 23).

Conditions

Equipment must comply with special safety and mar-itime regulations.

34 The continental shelf law does notappear to specify other conditions.

Activities

France’s activities have been limited to sand andgravel exploration and mining.35

Federal Republic of Germany

Laws

● The FRG claims a 3-mile territorial sea.36

● The FRG declared its rights over the ContinentalShelf on January 20, 1964 and issued provisionalregulations of rights on July 24, 1964.37

• The FRG has not declared an EEZ .38

Jurisdiction

● Territorial waters: Jurisdiction in German lawsmay be split one of three ways: 1 ) the federal gov-ernment has exclusive jurisdiction, 2) the federalgovernment makes the laws and the coastal statesenforce them, 3) the federal government sets aframework and the coastal states make the laws.Offshore mining in territorial waters fits into cate-gory 2.39

● Continental shelf: The federal government has ex-clusive jurisdiction. 40

Permit Process41

● Exploration and exploitation: Permits are awardedby the Chief Mining Board of Clausthal-Zellerfeld(for the technical and commercial aspects of min-ing) in conjunction with the German HydrographicInstitute (for the use and utilization of the watersand airspace above the continental shelf) .42 Permitsare awarded on a discretionary, informal basis,sometimes considering factors such as a company’s

3*N Ely, Op. at.wp, H~e and P. McLaren, op. cit.~cLaw of the Sea Bulletin, 1983, op. cit., p. 34.~TContinent~ Shelf Declaration, Jan. 20, 1964, and the Act on provisional

Determination of Rights Relating to the Continental Shdf, July 24, 1964(amended Sept. 2, 1974).

J8Law of the Sea Bufletin, 1983, Op. cit.

~9Mr. Max &h&n, Transportation Oflice, FRG Embassy, personal com-

munication to OTA, Aug. 12, 1986.+ocontinent~ Shelf Declaration, 1964, op. cit., p. 37.~lThe following detai~ on process, terms, and conditions apply to the Con-

tinental shelf.+zAct on provision~ Determination of Rights Relating to the Continental

Shelf, July 24, 1%4; amended Sept. 2, 1974,

App. D—Ocean Mining Laws of Other Countries 311

reputation for cooperativeness with the govern-ment. This approach derives from a historical tra-dition in which the King had personal authorityover all mining operations. Competitive biddingis not used because it is seen as discouraging min-ing activity .43

Terms

Exploration: Permits are valid for 3 years, with ex-tensions possible up to 5 years, if the Act referredto in Article 16, paragraph 2 of the ContinentalShelf Declaration, has not yet come into force whenthe original permit expires.Exploitation: Royalty payments to the Chief Min-ing Board of Clausthal-Zellerfeld are required‘‘where the competitive position of enterprises en-gaged in mining in German territorial waters wouldotherwise be substantially affected. The amountis to be based on mining dues which would ‘ ‘cus-tomarily be payable at the point in German ter-ritorial waters nearest to the place of extraction.Royalty payments are transferred according to theAct of Article 16, paragraph 2.[Details regarding exclusive and sampling rights,size and fees are unknown. ]

Conditions

Permits may be issued subject to conditions and re-strictions and may be subject to cancellation. The lawdoes not specify what issues those conditions might ad-dress, although safety and technical aspects are amongthose considered .44

Activities

Exploration has revealed that German waters havelimited amounts of oil and gas and some coal .45 The sta-tus of an application for the exploration of the continen-tal shelf, filed by a consortium of companies, was un-certain as of 1980.46 No exploration is currently takingplace, as no finds are expected .47

Sand and gravel extractionis an established industry in

within the territorial seasthe Baltic.48

Japan

Laws

●

●

●

Japan claims a 12-mile territorial sea.49

Japan does not claim a continental shelf or anEEZ. 50

Japan has no comprehensive legislation dealingwith offshore mining. The Mining Law, QuarryLaw, and Gravel Gathering Law apply to offshoremining, depending on the type of mineral to be ex-ploited. The Mining Law regulates activities on thecontinental shelf. The applicability of the other twolaws outside the territorial waters has not been ex-amined in detail .51

Jurisdiction

The government of Japan exercises jurisdiction overoff-shore mining under the above-mentioned laws.52

Permit Process

Under the Mining Law, application for permits foroffshore mining are submitted to the Director-Generalof Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI) regionalbureau.

For quarrying, permits are granted by the Director-General of MITI regional bureau. Entrepreneurs reg-ister with the Governor of the prefecture, or with theDirector-General of MITI regional bureau if their oper-ations extend over more than one prefecture.

For gravel-gathering, issuance of permits is regulatedon the prefectural level. Entrepreneurs register with theGovernor of the prefecture, or with the Director-Generalof MITI regional bureau if their operations extend overmore than one prefecture. 53

Terms

A fixed fee is assessed for each unit of aggregatemined .54 Permits for exploration and exploitation areissued separately under the Mining Law. One permitcovers both exploration and exploitation under theQuarry Law and the Gravel Gathering Law.

Duration: Permits for exploration are valid for twoyears with two possible extensions; no limit in durationfor permits for exploitation (Mining Law). Permits arevalid up to 20 years with possible extensions (Quarry

*JM. Kehden, op cit“M Kehden, op. cit“Ibid,*cMarlne Aggr~ate Project, EIS, VO1. 1, February 1980, Consolidated Cold

Fields Australia Ltd and ARC Marine Ltd“ M . Kehden, op. cit4 8 M a r i n e Aggrqate prOJect, oP. clt.

+gLaw of the Sea Bulletin, 1983, op. cit., p. 39.$OIbid,s) Letter from Kaname Ikeda, Science Office, Embassy of Japan, to OTA,

June 15, 1987.‘z Ibid.3JIkeda, o p clt5~Ibid,


Law). No specific provisions (Gravel and GatheringLaw).

Maximum permit area: 35,000 ares (Mining Law);55

no specific provisions (Quarry Law, Gravel GatheringLaw).

Permits are exclusive (Mining Law, Quarry Law) .5’

Conditions

Factors which are considered in deciding on the issu-ance of permits are: health and sanitary considerations,unreasonable interference with other industrial uses, andcompliance with public welfare.

Factors which are considered in regulating miningactivity are: whether a firm is part of an association,exclusivity, fishing rights, location (minimum distancefrom shore and minimum water depth), conflicting uses,prohibited areas (seaweed ‘ ‘plantations’ and drag netareas), buffer zones (sometimes greater than 500m be-tween zones), mining methods (must be sand pump orclam shell), quantity, duration of license, uses, and mar-ket area.57

Activities

Activity is limited to sand and gravel, 94 percent ofwhich occurs in Kyushu and offshore the Seto Opera-tions.58 There is also some iron sand mining in thePrefecture of Shimane.

Netherlands 59

Laws

●

●

●

The Netherlands recently expanded its territorialsea to 12 miles. A law for sand and gravel extrac-tion within this area exists. By 1988 or 1989, thislaw will be extended to the continental shelf, basedon the provisions of the 1958 Geneva Convention.The Netherlands Continental Shelf Act applies onlyto oil and gas.The Netherlands has no declared EEZ, because thegovernment does not consider the EEZ to be cus-tomary international law yet.

553,5 square kilometers.

5sIkeda, op. cit.57T, u~ami, K, Tsumsakl, T. Hirota, et al., ‘‘Seafloor Sand Mining in Ja-

pan, ” in “Proceedings of Marine Technology ‘79—Ocean Energy’ MarineTechnology Society, Washington, DC, pp. 176-189.

‘81bid.sgThis information was obtained through interviews with Mr. Wim J. Van

Teeffelen, Assistant Attache for Science and Technology, Royal NetherlandsEmbassy, and Mr. Henk Van Hoom from the Ministsy of Transportation andWaterworks, Directorate for the North Sea.

Jurisdiction

● Territorial waters: The central government hasjurisdiction since provinces in the Netherlands havelittle power. The Ministry of Transport and Pub-lic Works issues permits for mining within the 12-mile zone.

● Continental shelf: The central government hasjurisdiction. The Department of Treasury issuespermits.

Permit Process

Exploration and exploitation: If a company wishesto extract sand, it approaches the appropriate govern-ment agency with its request. As long as a company doesnot violate any of the informal conditions and criteria,it is granted a permit. Since few companies are inter-ested and potential mining areas are plentiful, compa-nies do not have to bid competitively for mining permits.

Terms

● Exploration: [Details on duration, exclusivity andsampling rights, size, and fees are unknown.

● Exploitation: Royalties must be paid. [Details onrates, duration, exclusivity, size, and fees areunknown. ]

Conditions

Currently, informal policy criteria guide the agency’sdecisions to issue permits. In the Netherlands, one learnsfrom childhood about the importance of preserving thecoastal and ocean environment. The most importantconsideration is distance from the coastline of the pro-posed activity (must be no closer than 20 km to thecoast); since the Netherlands is 2/3 below sea level, itis crucial to prevent coastal erosion. Some areas, suchas the Waddensea area in the north, are off limits eventhough a great deal of sand is available, for environ-mental reasons (wetlands, seals, and nursery groundsfor North Sea fish). Conflicts with pipelines, the envi-ronment, and fisheries are also considered; these con-flicts are rare, however, because activity is limited. Athird consideration is the type of technology the com-pany proposes to use. (i. e., thin layer dredging or deephole dredging; the former is currently preferred)

The Ministry of Transport and Public Works is cur-rently working to formalize these policy criteria, whichcenter around environmental concerns. The Ministryis examining the environmental consequences of min-ing in different areas. This will guide the choice of fu-ture mining sites and types of technologies.

App. D—Ocean Mining Laws of Other Countries ● 3 1 3

Activities

Only sand and gravel, and mostly the former, is cur-rently being extracted. No other economic minerals areexpected to be found in Dutch waters. Few companiesare involved and not much expanded activity in the fu-ture is anticipated unless land mining becomes very re-stricted.

Sand is extracted either from areas where it is natu-rally abundant or from shallow channels in the NorthSea which need to be dredged anyway to allow largeships through (e. g., on the approach to Amsterdam).Activity takes place fairly close to shore because of trans-port requirements.

Norway

Laws

Territorial sea and continental shelf: Norwaypassed, on June 21, 1963, Act No. 12, relating toScientific Research and Exploration for and Exploi-tation of Subsea Natural Resources other than Pe-troleum Resources. On June 12, 1970, a Royal De-cree was issued, setting provisional Rules for theExploration for Certain Submarine Natural Re-sources other than Petroleum.Norway declared an Exclusive Economic Zone onDecember 17, 1976.60

Jurisdiction

Under the Act of June 21, 1963, the King has theauthority to issue exploration and exploitation permitsand make regulations, in regard to both territorial seasand the continental shelf. 61

Permit Process

Unknown

Terms

● Exploration: The Ministry of Industry may granttwo year licenses for exploration of certain subma-rine natural resources. An application must includea description of the method of proposed explora-tion. The license does not give exclusive rights orguarantee exploitation rights. 62

‘“Act of Dec 17, 1976, Economic Zone of Norway.“Act No. 12, June 21, 1963, Sclentlfic Research and Exploration for and

Exploitation of Subsea Natural Resources other than Petroleum Resources6’Royal Decree, June 12, 1970, provisional Rules concerning Exploration

for Certain Submarme Natural Resources other than Petroleum In the Nor-

~egian Continental Shelf, etc

Conditions

Exploration: Activities must avoid disturbing ship-ping, fishing, aviation, marine fauna or flora, subma-rine cables, etc. 63

Thailand

Laws

Thailand has a 12-mile territorial sea. 64

Thailand has declared a continental shelf. 65

Thailand has not declared an EEZ.66

Offshore mining is governed by the Minerals ActB.E. 2510, 1967, as amended by the Minerals ActNo. 2, 1973 and the Minerals Act No. 3, 1979.This act also covers onshore mining.67

Jurisdiction

The government has exclusive ownership of all min-erals ‘‘upon, in or under the surface of public domainand privately owned land. The Minerals Act is admin-istered by the Department of Mineral Resources withinthe Ministry of Industry. 68

Permit Process

Unknown for both exploration and exploitation

Terms

● Exploration: There are three types of permits:1. The local District Mineral Resources Officer, on

2

behalf of the central government, can issue aone-year nonrenewable prospecting license fora prescribed fee. The mineral of interest and thearea to be prospected must be specified.Exclusive Prospecting Licenses are granted bythe Minister of Industry, although applicationsare filed with the District Officer. The licenseis usually valid for 1 year, but for no more than2. It is exclusive and non-transferable. The max-imum permit area is 500,000 rai ( 1 rai is about2/5 acre).

—b31bid.G4Law of the Sea Bulletin, 1983, op. cit. , p 82.c51bid.csIbid., p, 63.67C-U, RuangSuy,an (Department of Mineral Resources, M inist r}’

of Industry, Thailand), ‘ ‘The Development of Offshore Mineral Re-sources in Thailand, ‘‘ in International Symposium on the INew Lawof the Sea in Southeast Asia, D, Johnston (ed. ) (Dalhousie OceanStudies Programme: 1983), pp. 83-87.

bBIbid.

7 2 - 6 7 2 0 - 87 -- 11


3. A Special Prospecting License is granted if theproject requires substantial investment and spe-cial technology. The maximum permit area is10,000 rai, but there is no limit on the numberof permits for which one may apply. Permits arevalid for 3 years, and may be renewed for nomore than 2 years. A certain amount of activityis required. 69

Exploitation: Mining leases and concessions are is-sued by the Minister of Energy. An applicationmust be made in a prescribed form and certain feesare required. The maximum mining area is 50,000rai.70 A prospector is entitled to a concession uponmaking a mineral discovery and showing financialability. Royalty rates are fixed by the governmentand may vary by mineral and area. An annual rentmay also be required. Concessions are for a 75-yearterm.

Conditions

Environmental considerations are minor. The coun-try does not have comprehensive environmental legis-lation. 71

Activities

Tin is theof Thailandplace since20,000 tonsonshore had

main mineral being extracted from the Gulfand the Andaman Sea; activity has taken1907. In 1976, onshore production waswhile offshore was about 8,300. By 1980,only risen to 22,200 tons while offshore had

jumped to 23,700.72

United Kingdom

Laws

● A bill to extend the territorial sea from 3 to 12 mileshas recently been passed.73

● The United Kingdom claimed its continental shelfin 1964.74

● The United Kingdom has not declared an EEZ.

Jurisdiction

● Territorial waters: Proprietary rights to the bed ofthe Territorial Sea form a part of the Crown Es-

Wbid.701bid.“D, Johnston, Ocean Studies Programme, Dalhousie University, Halifax,

Canada, personal communication to OTA, Aug. 15, 1986.72C. U , Ruangmvan, op. Cit,

7JLetter from the Foreign and Commonwealth office of the United King-

dom, London, England to OTA through R. L. Embleton, British Embassy,May 15, 1987.

7~Law of the Sea Bulletin, 1983, op. cit.

tate. Under the Crown Estate Act of 1961 the CrownEstate Commissioners are charged with the man-agement of the Estate which includes the rights tolicense mineral extraction on the Territorial Seabedbut excluding oil, gas, and coal.Continental shelf: Rights to mining of mineralsother than oil, gas, and coal on the continental shelfare granted to the Crown by the Continental ShelfAct, 1964. The Commissioners have the power togrant prospecting and dredging licenses.75

Permit Process

Exploration: Since experience has shown thatprospecting usually does not conflict unacceptablywith other ocean uses, no formal government con-sultation process is required to obtain a permit.However, the Crown Estate Commissioners do in-form the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andFood (MAFF) before issuing a license and theMAFF, after consultation with regional officials,will notify the company of potential objections.Bulk sampling requires separate authorization bythe Commissioners. The MAFF may proposechanges (e. g., in time, place or extraction method)in order to protect fisheries. 76

Exploitation: Applications to the Commissionersare first sent to Hydraulics Research Limited to ad-vise whether there is likely to be any adverse effecton the adjacent coastline. Only if their advice isfavorable does the application proceed, and it isthen forwarded to the Minerals Division of the De-partment of the Environment (DOE)77 The DOEoversees the ‘‘Government View’ procedure whichincludes consultation with other Government de-partments and agencies dealing with coast protec-tion, fisheries, navigation, oil and gas, and defenseinterests. If any department has a substantive ob-jection, it may discuss it informally with the com-pany or with the Crown Estate Commissioners be-fore reporting it to the Department of theEnvironment .78 The Department ultimately makesa recommendation to the Commissioners.

Terms

● Exploration: Licenses are issued for either 2 or 4years and are not transferable. They permit use of

75D. Pasho, ‘ ‘The United Kingdom Oflkhore Aggregate Industry: A Reviewof Management Practims and Issues, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Re-sources Canada, January, 1986, p. 17,

7Wode of Practice for the Extraction of Marine Aggregates, December 1981,p. 10.

“D. Pasho, p. 19,Tacode of Practice, p. 11.

App. D—Ocean Mining Laws of Other Countries ● 315

seismic and core-sampling techniques and limited

bulk sampling by dredger (up to 1,000 tonnes over

the period of the licence). The license fee chargedby the Crown Estate is on a sliding scale depend-ing on the size of area. Exploration licences are

nonexclusive and are normally renewable. 79

● Exploitation: Licenses are granted on a continu-ing basis but may be terminated at 6 months’ no-tice. They are expressed to be nonexclusive but as

far as possible each area is granted to a single oper-ator. A maximum annual removal limit is stipu-lated. Royalties are payable on the actual quan-tity removed from the seabed but a dead rent of

20 percent of the maximum permissible tonnagemultiplied by the current royalty rate is chargedwhether or not any material is removed. Royaltyrates are reviewed periodically but are indexed in

the Retail Price Index in the intervening years. The

current royalties represent about 5 percent of the

selling price of the material at the wharf of land-

ing. 80

C o n d i t i o n s

● Exploration: Dril l ing and sampling near cables is

restricted. ‘ ‘Unjustifiable interference” with navi-

gation, fishing or conservation of living resources

is prohibited. The company must provide the Com-

missioners with reports on operations and a full re-port on prospecting results including geophysical

profiles.

● E x p l o i t a t i o n : A n a p p l i c a n t m u s t h a v e h e l d a

prospecting license for the area. According to the

1977 Code of Practice, an applicant must have the

necessary vessels, facilities, etc. to undertake work.

The l icense specif ies the maximum annual quan-tity to be dredged, and safety provisions. Licenses

may be terminated by either party at 6-months’

notice.

The Government View procedure is intended to re-

solve ocean use conflicts. Special attention is given to

potential confl icts between f ishing and mining in the

Code of Practice. The government recognizes that bothindustries ‘ ‘are legitimately exploiting the sea’s re-

sources. Therefore, it does not give special priority to

any particular activity; for instance, the MAFF does not

object to a mining license solely because it involves a

fishery area. a]

‘qF(Jrelqn and Commonwealth Oflic c, op. CI(*011)1(18 ’ II)ld , p 11

Activities

Sand and gravel dredging is a fairly well established

activity, dating back to the mid-1920s. 82 The at tached

table gives details on production at dif ferent mining

sites. In 1985, marine sources provided about 14 per-

cent of Britain’s sand and gravel needs.

New Zealand

Laws

●

●

●

●

New Zealand claims a 12-mile territorial sea. 83

New Zea land dec la red i t s c on t inenta l she l f in

1 9 6 4 .8 4

New Zealand declared an EEZ on September 6,

1977 with Act No. 28. Enactment of implement-ing legislation is pending international confirma-

tion of the Law of the Sea Treaty . 85

Legislation is currently being reviewed on a low-

key basis by the Minister of Energy’s office; a re-

port to the ministers is pending. 86

J u r i s d i c t i o n

Continental shelf: The Minister of Energy has exclu-

sive authority to issue prospecting and mining licenses

for minerals in the seabed or subsoil of the continental

shelf. 87

Permit Process

Exploration and exploitation: Interested companies

apply to the Minister of Energy and so long as they meet

all the requirements, wil l be awarded a l icense. The

company must show that it meets all the requirements

by submitting a project assessment with its application

(e. g., environmental assessment). The concerned agen-

cies will become involved in the review process, but thecompany on ly dea l s d i r e c t l y w i th the Min i s t e r o f

Energy .88

T e r m s

E x p l o r a t i o n a n d e x p l o i t a t i o n : T o d a t e , o n l y o n e

prospecting license has been issued, so few precedents

have been set. However, the granting process is likely

to closely parallel that for oil and gas. Prospecting and

‘2D. Pasho, p. 10,aJ1,aw. “f the Sea Bul]erln, 1 ~8’\, ~p [’it ~ P. 62

‘+Ibd8$\Ir p a t Hc.lm, New Zealan(j Embass},, a n d ofli( Ials In wt>ilin~ton, ~’~’~

Zealand, letter to OTA, Aug 1, 198b‘cIbd‘~~”ew Z e a l a n d (;ontlncntal Sbelt A( t, 19b4, Nc] 28, S e c t i o n 5Ssrbl{i

.

316 .

Marine

Minerals:

Exploring

Our

New

O

cean F

rontier

Table D·1.-0cean Mining Laws of Other Countries

ItI"":>

Permit process Rights Size Fees ~,~, ~k'<' t,~~."', y~i < _'V, .... -" .. ~

'¢9.;tn1;~~tit~L' '.T· .

No limit

Exploitation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Same as above

BIIrm,.,: Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 Granted by discretion of 3 years, extension

Chief Mining Board and up to 5 years Hydrographic Institute

Exploitation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Same as above

NMherIInd.: Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 Application evaluated by

appropriate agency against informal criteria and conditions

Same as above

Legislation currently being developed

Royalties

Based on nearest territorial water dues

Conditions

:.'.'1111111 IU .. ~,,~, ........ • '1tIIIIIit . .• ~ III I ,_no" '~::.i.."'~:;' ........ ,

Minerals

.~,i .... ·iF~ ~C<_.

,~' ;:;r" ~"~ ~ ~;,,J:~~,,... 4

Environmental Gold, sand assessment and review process

Same as above

• Safety • Technical

considerations

Same as above

• At least 20 km from coast

• Use conflict: pipelines, environment, fisheries

None currently

Sand, gravel

Same as above

Sand, gravel

App. D—Ocean Mining Laws of Other Countries . 317

I

I I I I I

I I I I I

1

I I I

I

.. .

I

I

I

.

.


mining licenses are granted separately, so legally, theright to prospect is not tied to the right to mine. Logi-cally, however, a company which has invested in pros-pecting is likely to obtain a mining license. Furthermore,since the government is often a partner in prospectingoperations, exploitation rights follow naturally. Licensesdo not grant exclusive rights; however, not enoughactivity has taken place to make this a controversial is-sue. 89 [Details regarding duration, size, and fees areunknown. ]

Royalties must be paid to the Crown by the opera-tor. Rates are specified in the license. No mining licensehas been issued, so no basis for assessing royalties hasbeen established. go

Conditions

Any mining activities must disturb the marine envi-ronment and life as little as ‘‘reasonably possible, ” mustnot interfere with the rights of commercial fishermen,must comply with safety provisions of the 1971 MiningAct and 1979 Coal Mines Act.

‘gIbid.‘“Ibid

Activities must not violate any of the restrictive reg-

ulations set forth by the Governor-General, concerning

navigation, fishing, conservation of living resources, na-

tional defense, oceanographic research, submarine ca-

bles, or pipelines. “Unjustif iable interference” with any

of these activities is defined at the Governor-General’s

d i s c r e t i o n . 91 However, in practice, the details of regu-

lations are specif ied in Parliamentary committees, in

consultation with representatives from appropriate gov-

ernment branches (i. e., the Ministry of the Environ-ment) . 92

The Inspector of Mines, in consultation with the Min-istry of Transport, Marine Division, and Ministry ofAgriculture and Fisheries arbitrates conflicts betweenminers and commercial fishermen.93

Activities

One license has been issued for the prospecting ofphosphorite nodules.94

g! NCW zea]and Continental Sheff Act, Section 8.9 2P H e l m , op. cit.‘s Ibid.‘*Ibid.

Appendix E

Tables of Contents forOTA Contractor Reports

Manned Submersibles and RemotelyOperated Vehicles: Their Use for

Exploring the EEZ

Frank Busby

Busby Associates, Inc.

576 S. 23rd Street

A r l i n g t o n , V A 2 2 2 0 2

Table of Contents

A p p l i c a t i o n s

M a n n e d S u b m e r s i b l e s

R e m o t e l y O p e r a t e d V e h i c l e s

H y b r i d V e h i c l e s

A d v a n t a g e s a n d L i m i t a t i o n sCapab i l i t i e s

Vehicle Applications in the EEZ

Reg iona l Surveys /Reconna i s sance

L o c a l S u r v e y s

S a m p l i n g

In Situ Mineral Analyses

E x a m p l e sN e e d e d T e c h n i c a l D e v e l o p m e n t s

Technologies for Dredge MiningMinerals of the Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ)

M . J . R i c h a r d s o n

C o n s o l i d a t e d P l a c e r D r e d g i n g , i n c .

1 7 9 6 1 A C o w a n

I r v i n e , C A 9 2 7 1 4

Edward E . Hor ton

D e e p O i l T e c h n o l o g y , I n c .

P . O . B o x 1 6 1 8 9Irvine, California 92713

A r l i n g t o n , V A 2 2 2 0 2

Table of Contents

in t roduct ion

Placer Min ing Techno logyP r e c i o u s M i n e r a l s

H e a v y M i n e r a l s

Industrial Minerals

D e f i n i t i o n s

Bib l i ography

D r e d g e M i n i n g S y s t e m s

Bucket Ladder DredgeBucket Dredges for Mining

Suction dredges for Mining

Beneficiation Systems

Tailings Disposal

M i n i n g C o n t r o l

Economics and Eff ic iency of Dredge Mining

O p e r a t i o n sCap i ta l Cos t s

O p e r a t i n g C o s t s

P l a c e r S a m p l i n g M e t h o d s

Initial Survey Scout Sampling

Indicated Reserves

P r o v e n R e s e r v e s

Drilling SystemsBulk Sampl ing

P lacer Sampl ing Equ ipment Compar i son

Evaluation Procedures

P r e c i o u s M i n e r a l s

H e a v y M i n e r a l s

Industrial Minerals

Applications to Offshore Deposits

Future Technologies for Offshore Dredge Mining

Offshore Titanium Heavy MineralPlacers: Processing and Related

Considerations

Arlington Technical Services

4 Co lony Lane

Ar l ing ton , MA 02174

W . W . H a r v e y a n d F . C . B r o w n

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

T i tan ium and Assoc ia ted Minera l s

Salient Features of the Industry

Recent History of Titanium Sands Mining in the

Us.General Extrapolations to Offshore Deposits

Typical Flow Sheets for Processing Ti/associatedHeavy Mineral Sands

Modifications for Processing an Offshore DepositA Dune Sands Analog of the Postulated Offshore

Deposit

379


Offshore Titanium Heavy Minerals ProductionScenario

Approach to a Framework for EvaluationComponent Costs for Heavy Mineral Sands

Mining and ProcessingOre Grades for Break-Even Production from

OffshoreOre Grade Requirements: Revised Basis and

ApproachReferencesTablesFiguresAppendix

Processing Considerations for ChromiteHeavy Mineral Placers

Arlington Technical Services4 Old Colony LaneArlington, MA 02174

W.W. Harvey and F.C

Table of Contents

Preliminary Notes

Brown

Synopsis’ of U.S. Chromium IndustryMining and Processing of the Black SandsProduction Potential of Offshore Chromite Placers

Costs for a Southwest Oregon Beach Sands PlacerCosts for an Offshore Chromite Heavy Mineral

PlacerEffect of New TechnologiesReferencesTablesFigures

Offshore Phosphorite Deposits:Processing and Related Considerations


W.W. Harvey and F.C. Brown

Table of Contents

Background and PerspectivesInitial PerspectivesOnshore/Offshore ComparisonsDevelopment IncentivesPast Commercial Activities

Qualitative Economic ConsiderationsBroad Cost ComparisonCost Offset Via Higher Ore ValuesPhosphorite Placer Development

Prior Engineering/Economic StudiesReferencesTablesFigures

Polymetallic Sulfides and Oxides ofthe U.S. EEZ: Metallurgical Extraction

and Related Aspects of PossibleFuture Development


W.W. Harvey

Table of Contents

ForewordRecent LiteraturePolymetallic Sulfides

Subsea OccurrencesTerrestrial DepositsProcessing TechnologiesTables and Figures, Section II

Oxide Nodules and CrustsBroad IntercomparisonsMajor Processing and Marketing IssuesRecent Process-Related StudiesFigures, Section III

ReferencesAppendix

Data Management in aof Exploration and

of the U.S.Richard C. Vetter4779 North 33rd StreetArlington, VA 22207

Table of Contents

Introduction

National ProgramDevelopmentE E Z

Conclusions, Problem Areas, andExamination of Limiting Factors

Is Technology Limiting?Is Understanding of Wise Data

Concepts Limiting?Is Infrastructure Lacking?Is Funding Limiting?

Recommendations

Management

The Present-Situation-and the Near FutureFederal Agencies

Department of Commerce/National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration

App. E—Tables of Contents for OTA Contractor Reports . 321

National Environmental Satellite, Data, U.S. Navyand Information Service State and Local Governments

NationalNationalNationalNational

Geophysical Data Center Academic and Private LaboratoriesOceanographic Data Center IndustryOcean Service Other Data Management StudiesMarine Fisheries Service Study Procedures

Department of the Interior ReferencesMinerals Management Service AppendicesU.S. Geological Survey Questionnaire

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contacts

72-672 0 - 87 -- 12

Appendix F

OTA Workshop Participantsand Other Contributors

Workshop Participants-Technologies for Surveying and Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone, Washington, D. C., June 10, 1986.Participants described and evaluated technologies used for reconnoitering the EEZ, including bathymetry systems,side-looking sonar systems, and seismic, magnetic, and gravity technologies.

Chris AndreasenNational Ocean Service, NOAA

Robert D. BallardWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

John BrozenaNaval Research Laboratory

Gary HillU.S. Geological Survey, Reston

John La BrecqueLamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

William M. MarquetWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Don PryorCharting and Geodetic ServicesNational Ocean Service, NOAA

Bill RyanLamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

Carl SavitWestern Geophysical Co.

Robert C. TyceGraduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode Island, RI

Donald WhiteGeneral Instrument Corporation

Site-Specific Technologies for Exploring the Exclusive Economic Zone, Washington, D. C., July 16, 1986.Participants described and evaluated technologies for coring, dredging, and drilling and technologies for electricaland geochemical exploration.

Roger Amato John NoakesMinerals Management Service Center for Applied Isotope Studies

Alan D. ChaveAT&T Bell Laboratories

Michael J. CruickshankConsulting Marine Mining

Charles Dill

University of Georgia, GA

William D. SiapnoMarine Consultant

Engineer Paul TelekiU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Alpine Ocean Seismic Survey, Inc.

Peter B. HaleOffshore Minerals SectionEnergy, Mines, and Resources Canada

W. William HarveyArlington Technical Services, VA

Edward E. HortonDeep Oil Technology, Inc.

Jerzy MaciolekExploration Technologies, Inc.

John TothAnalytical Services, Inc.

Robert WillardU.S. Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, MN

S. Jeffress WilliamsU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Robert WoolseyMississippi Minerals Resources Institute, MS

J. Robert MooreDepartment of Marine StudiesUniversity of Texas, TX

322

App. F—OTA Workshop Participants and Other Contributors ● 323

Pacific EEZ Minerals, Newport, Oregon, November 20, 1986. Participants assessed knowledge of chromite sands,cobalt crusts, and polymetallic sulfides of the U.S. Pacific EEZ and evaluated existing and potential technologyfor mining and processing these deposits. Held in cooperation with the Hatfield Marine Science Center, OregonState University.

Robert BaileyDepartment of Land Conservation and

DevelopmentState of Oregon

Thomas CarnahanBureau of Mines, Reno, NV

David K. DentonBureau of Mines, Spokane, WA

Don FootBureau of Mines, Salt Lake City, UT

Laverne KulmCollege of OceanographyOregon State University, OR

Charles MorganManganese Crust EIS Project

Joseph R. RitcheyBureau of Mines, Spokane, WA

Reid StoneOffice of Strategic and International MineralsMinerals Management Service

Steve Hammond James WenzelVents Program, NOAA Marine Development Associates, Inc.

Benjamin W. Haynes Robert ZierenbergBureau of Mines, Avondale, AZ U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA

James R. HeinU.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA

Donald HullOregon Department of Geology and Mineral

Industries, OR

Data Classification, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, January 27, 1987. Participants assessed the effect that classifi-cation of bathymetric data and other types of oceanographic data may have on marine science activities. Held incooperation with the Marine Policy and Ocean Management Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

James BroadusWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

John EdmondDepartment of Earth and Planetary SciencesMassachusetts Institute of Technology, MA

Richard GreenwaldOcean Mining Associates

James KosalosInternational Submarine Technology

Jacqueline MammericksScripps Institution of Oceanography

Donna MoffittOffice of Marine AffairsDepartment of Administration

W. Jason MorganDepartment of Geological and Geophysical SciencesPrinceton University, PA

Peter A. RonaAtlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological

Laboratories, NOAA

David RossWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Derek W. SpencerWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Robert C. TyceGraduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode Island, RI


Mining and Processing Placers of the Exclusive Economic Zone, Washington, D. C., September 18, 1986.Participants critiqued an OTA working paper on the mineral resources of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coast EEZs.Technologies for offshore placer mining and for minerals processing were also discussed.

Richard A. Beale David RossAssociated Minerals (U. S. A.) Ltd. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Michael J. Cruickshank John RowlandConsulting Marine Mining Engineer Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.

Edward Escowitz Langtry E. LyndU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.

Andrew Grosz J. Robert MooreU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA Department of Marine Studies

University of Texas, TXFrank C. HamataSceptre-Ridel-Dawson Constructors Scott Snyder

Gretchen LuepkeDepartment of Geology

U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CAEast Carolina University, NC

George WatsonRuud OuwerkerkDredge Technology Corporation

Ferroalloy Associates

S. Jeffress WilliamsTom OxfordU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Richard RosamiliaGreat Lakes Dredge and Dock Co.

Environmental Effects of Offshore Mining, Washington, D. C., October 29, 1986. Surface, mid-water, andbenthic impacts were assessed for both near-shore and open-ocean mining situations. Potential effects of offshoredredging on coastal processes were also addressed.

Henry J. BokuniewiczMarine Sciences Research CenterState University of New York at Stony Brook, NY

Michael J. CruickshankConsulting Marine Mining Engineer

Clifton CurtisOceanic Society

David DuaneNational Sea Grant College Program, NOAA

Joseph FlanaganOcean Minerals and Energy, NOAA

Barbara HeckerLamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

Michael J. HerzTiberon Center for Environmental StudiesUniversity of San Francisco, CA

Robert R. HesslerScripps Institution of Oceanography

Art HurmeU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Greg McMurrayOregon Department of Geology and Mineral

Industries, OR

Ed MyersOcean Minerals and Energy, NOAA

John PadanOcean Minerals and Energy, NOAA

Andrew PalmerEnvironmental Policy Institute

Dean ParsonsNational Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

David W. PashoResource Management BranchEnergy, Mines, and Resources Canada

AD D. F—OTA Workshop Participants and Other Contributors 325. .

Mario PaulaNew York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

NY

Richard K. PeddicordBattelle NE, MA

Joan PopeU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jean SniderOcean Assessment, NOAA

Other Contributors

Craig AmergianAnalytical Services, Inc.

Robert AbelN.J. Marine Science Consortium, NJ

W.T. AdamsU.S. Bureau of MinesVera AlexanderUniversity of Alaska

Chris AndreasenNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Jack H. ArcherWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Ted ArmbrustmacherU.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CODale AveryU.S. Bureau of Mines

Ledolph BaerNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Susan BalesDavid Taylor Naval Ship Research and

Development Center

Bill BarnardOffice of Technology Assessment

Aldo F. BarsottiU.S. Bureau of MinesDan BastaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Alan BauderU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Wayne BellUniversity of Maryland, MD

Jeff BenoitMassachusetts Department of Environmental

Quality and Engineering, MA

Rick BerquistVirginia Institute of Marine Science, VA

Buford HoltU.S. Department of the Interior

David ThistleDepartment of OceanographyFlorida State University, FL

George D. F. WilsonScripps Institution of Oceanography

Thomas WrightU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lewis BrownNational Science Foundation

Bill BurnettUniversity of Florida, FL

R.J. ByrneVirginia Institute of Marine Sciences, VA

David CampFlorida Department of Natural Resources, FL

Bill CannonU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Jim CathcartU.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO

M. W. ChessonZellars-Williams Company

Michael A. ChinneryNational Geophysical Data Center

Joe ChristopherGulf of Mexico Region, Minerals Management

Service

Jay CombeU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans

District, LA

Stephen G. ConradNorth Carolina Division of Land Resources, NC

Margaret CourainNational Environmental Satellite, Data, and

Information Service

Dennis CoxU.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA

Michael CruickshankConsulting Marine Mining Engineer

Mike CzarneckiNaval Research Laboratory

Lou J. CzelE.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.


James F. DavisCalifornia Department of Conservation, CA

Mike De LucaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

John H. De Young, Jr.U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

John DelaneyUniversity of Washington, WA

Bob DetrickUniversity of Rhode Island, RI

Captain Joseph DropNational Environmental Satellite, Data and

Information Service

Barry DruckerOffshore Environmental Assessment Div.David DuaneNational Sea Grant College Program

John DugenArete Associates

Frank EadenJoint Oceanographic Institutions

R.L. EmbletonBritish Embassy

Bill EmeryNational Center for Atmospheric Research

Robert EnglerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Herman EnzerU.S. Bureau of Mines

William ErbState Department,

Edward EscowitzU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Robert H. FakundinyNew York State Geological Survey, NY

Rich FantelU.S. Bureau of Mines, Denver, CO

Martin FinertyOcean Studies Board, National Academy of

Sciences

Joe FlanaganNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

John E. FlipseTexas A&M University, TX

Mike FooseU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Eric ForceU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Linda GloverU.S. Navy

John GouldInstitute of Ocean Sciences, England

James L. GreenNational Space Science Data Center

Andrew GroszU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Kenneth A. HaddadFlorida Department of Natural Resources, FL

Robert HallDepartment of the Interior

Gary HallbauerTexas Sea Grant, TX

Erick HartwigOffice of Naval ResearchW. William HarveyArlington Technical Services, VA

G. Ross HeathOregon State University, OR

Barbara HeckerLamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

J.B. HedrickU.S. Bureau of Mines

George HeimerdingerNational Oceanographic Data Center, NE Liaison

P.O. HelmEmbassy of New Zealand

H. James HerringDynalysis of Princeton, PA

Jerry HilbishUniversity of South Carolina, SC

Gary HillU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Tom HillmanU.S. Bureau of Mines, Spokane, WA

Jack HirdTexas Gulf

Joe HlubucekEmbassy of Australia

Porter HoaglandWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Carl H. HobbsVirginia Institute of Marine Science, VA

Kent HughesNational Oceanographic Data Center

App. F—OTA Workshop Participants and Other Contributors ● 3 2 7

Art HurmeU.S. Army Corps of EngineersLee HuntNaval Studies Board, National Research Council

Michel HuntMinerals Management Service

Kaname IkedaEmbassy of Japan

Roy JenneNational Center for Atmospheric Research

Janice JollyU.S. Bureau of MinesJim JollyU.S. Bureau of Mines

Ellen KappelLamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

Mary Hope KatsourosOcean Studies Board, National Research Council

Jeff KellamGeorgia Department of Natural Resources, GA

Joseph T. KelleyMaine Geological Survey

Terry KenyonVitro Corporation

Randall KerhinMaryland Geological Survey

Donald G. KesterkeU.S. Bureau of Mines, retired

Daniel KevinOffice of Technology AssessmentLee KimballCouncil on Ocean Law

Chuck KloseNASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

John KnaussUniversity of Rhode Island, RI

Skip KovacsNaval Research LaboratoryKenneth KvammenL.A. County Dept. of Public Works, CA

Richard N. LambertAero Service

Bill LangerU.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO

Raymond LasmanisWashington State Geologist, WA

Brad J. LaubachMinerals Management Service

Stephen LawU.S. Bureau of Mines, Avondale, AZ

Jim LawlessNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Wah Ting LeeDavid Taylor Naval Ship Research and

Development Center

Peter LeitnerGeneral Services Administration

Howard LevensonOffice of Technology Assessment

Ralph LewisConnecticut Department of Environmental

Protection

Bob LockermanNational Oceanographic Data Center

Millington LockwoodNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

J.R. LoebensteinU.S. Bureau of Mines

Michael LoughridgeNational Geophysical Data Center

J.M. LucasU.S. Bureau of Mines

Edwin E. LuperMississippi Bureau of Geology

Langtry LyndU.S. Bureau of Mines

Bruce MagnellEG&G

R. Gary MagnusonCoastal States Organization

Frank ManheimU.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole

Charles MathewsNational Ocean Industries Association

Samuel W. McCandless, Jr.User System Engineering, Inc.Bonnie McGregorU.S. Geological Survey

Gregory McMurrayOregon Department of Geology & Mineral

Industries

Michael HuntMinerals Management Service

Rosemary MonahanEnvironmental Protection Agency, Region I


Carla MooreNational Geophysical Data Center

Peter MoranEastman Kodak Co.

S. P. MurdochEmbassy of New Zealand

Nancy Friedrich NeffUniversity of Rhode Island, RI

Myron NordquistKelley, Drye & Warren

Terry W. OffieldU.S. Geological Survey

Jim OlsenU.S. Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, MN

Tom OsbornChesapeake Bay InstituteNed OstensoNational Sea Grant College Program

Norm PageU.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA

John PadanNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Tom PatinU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jack PearceNational Marine Fisheries Service

John PerryAtmospherics Studies Board, National Research

Council

Hal PetersenBattelle NE, MS

Richard A. PettersSound Ocean Systems, Inc.

Don PryorNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Larry PughNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Tom PyleJoint Oceanographic Institutions

Ransom ReedU.S. Bureau of Mines

R. ReeseU.S. Bureau of Mines

Joe RitcheyU.S. Bureau of Mines, Spokane, WA

Donald RogichU.S. Bureau of Mines

Nelson C. RossNational Oceanographic Data CenterWest Coast Liaison

John RowlandU.S. Bureau of Mines

Paul D. RyanEmbassy of Japan

Carl SavitWestern Geophysical Co. of America

Frederick SchmidtAmes Laboratory, Iowa State University, IA

Robert L. SchmidtU.S. Bureau of Mines

Henry R. SchorrGulf Coast Trailing Company

Bill SiapnoDeepsea VenturesAllen SielenEnvironmental Protection Agency, Office of

International Activities

E. Emit SmithGeological Survey of Alabama, AL

Jean SniderNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

David J. SpottiswoodColorado School of Mines, CO

Sidney StillwaughNational Oceanographic Data Center Pacific NW

Liaison

Reid StoneMinerals Management Service

William F. StowasserU.S. Bureau of Mines

William L. StubblefieldNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Tim SullivanAtlantic OCS Region, Minerals Management

Service

Bill SundaNational Marine Fisheries Service

Nick SundtOffice of Technology AssessmentJohn R. SuterLouisiana Geological Survey, LA

George TireyMinerals Management Service

. .

App. F—OTA Workshop Participants and Other Contributors 329

Tom UsselmanGeophysics Study Committee, National Research

Council

Gregory van der VinkOffice of Technology AssessmentVan WaddellScience Applications Inc.

Mike WalkerIntermagnetics General Corporation

Maureen WarrenNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Sui-Ying WatUnited Nations, Ocean, Economics and Technology

Branch

E. G. WernundUniversity of Texas at Austin, TX

Hoyt WheelandNational Marine Fisheries Service

Bob WillardU.S. Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, MN

S. Jeffress WilliamsU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Stan WilsonNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

Robert S. WinokurOffice of the Chief of Naval Operations

Gregory WitheeNational Oceanographic Data Center

W.D. WoodburyU.S. Bureau of Mines

Tom WrightU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jeffrey C. WynnU.S. Geological Survey

Dave ZinzerMinerals Management Service

Philip ZionNASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Appendix G

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AEM —Airborne Electromagnetic BathymetryAOML —Atlantic Oceanographic and

Meteorological LaboratoriesBOF —Basic Oxygen FurnaceBOM —U.S. Bureau of MinesBPL —Bone Phosphate of LimeBS3 —Bathymetric Swath Survey SystemCAIS —Center for Applied Isotope StudiesCALCOFI—California Cooperative Fisheries

InvestigationsCDP —Common Depth PointCOE —U.S. Army Corps of EngineersCSO —Coastal States OrganizationCZMA —Coastal Zone Management ActDGS —Digital Grain SizeDMRP —Dredged Material Research ProgramDOD —U.S. Department of DefenseDOE —U.S. Department of EnergyDOI —U.S. Department of the InteriorDOMES —Deep Ocean Mining Environmental

StudyDSHMRA—Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources

ActDSL —Deep Submergence LaboratoryEEZ —Exclusive Economic ZoneEIS —Environmental Impact StatementEPA —U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyERM —Exact Repeat MissionFOB —Free on BoardFWS —U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceGEODAS —Geophysical Data SystemGEOSAT —U.S. Navy Geodetic SatelliteGI —General Instrument Corp.GGB —Gridded Global BathymetryGLORIA —Geological Long Range Inclined AsdicGPS —Global Positioning SystemHEBBLE —High Energy Benthic Boundary Layer

ExperimentHIG —Hawaii Institute of GeophysicsHS —Hydrographic SurveyICES —International Council for Exploration

of the SeasIDOE —International Decade of Ocean

ExplorationIGY —International Geophysical YearIOS —Institute of Oceanographic Sciences1P —Induced PolarizationICES —International Council for the

Explorations of the Seas

1ST

ITAJOILDGO

LOSLOSCMBMCCMESAMGFMIPSM MMMSMOUMSRNASNASA

NACOA

NCAR

NEPANESDIS

NGDCNMFSNMPIS

NOAA

NOAC

NODC

—International Submarine Technology,Ltd.

—International Trade Administration—Joint Oceanographic Institutions—Lamont-Doherty Geological

Observatory—Law of the Sea—Law of the Sea Convention—Marine Boundary Data—Marine Core Curator—Marine Ecosystems Analysis Project—Miscellaneous Geology Files—Mini-Image Processing System—Marine Mineral Data—Minerals Management Service—Memorandum of Understanding—Marine Seismic Reflection—National Academy of Science—National Aeronautics and Space

Administration—National Advisory Committee on

Oceans and Atmosphere—National Center for Atmospheric

Research—National Environmental Policy Act—National Environmental Satellite Data

and Information Service—National Geophysical Data Center—National Marine Fisheries Service—National Marine Pollution Information

System—National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration—National Operations Security Advisory

Committee—National Oceanographic Data Center

NOMES —New England Offshore MiningEnvironmental Study

NORDA —Naval Ocean Research andDevelopment Activity

NOS —National Ocean SurveyNOS/HS —National Ocean Survey Hydrographic

SurveysNOS/MB —National Ocean Survey Multibeam

EEZ BathymetryNRC —National Research CouncilNRL —Naval Research LaboratoryNSF —National Science FoundationNSI —NASA Science Internet

330

App. G—Acronyms and Abbreviations ● 331

O A R —Oceans and Atmospheric Research SAR —Systeme Acoustique RemorqueOCS —Outer Continental Shelf SASS —Sonar Array Sounding SystemOCSLA —Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act SeaMARC—Sea Mapping and RemoteOCSEAP —Outer Continental Shelf Environment Characterization

OMAOMBOSIM

OSTP

ODPO M AONRPGMPMEL

R O RR O VSAB

Assessment Program—Ocean Mining Associates—Office of Management and Budget—Office of Strategic and International

Minerals—Office of Science and Technology

Policy—Ocean Drilling Program—Ocean Mining Associates—Office of Naval Research—Platinum Group Metal—Pacific Marine Environmental

Laboratory—Rate of Return—Remotely Operated Vehicle—Strategic Assessment Branch

SP —Self PotentialSPAN —Space Physics Analysis NetworkTAMU —Texas A & M UniversityTOGA —Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere

StudyUMI —Underwater Mining InstituteUSCG —U.S. Coast GuardUTM —Universal Transverse MercatorUNOLS —University National Oceanographic

Laboratory SystemUSGS —U.S. Geological SurveyWADSEP —Walking and Dredging Self-Elevating

PlatformWOCE —World Ocean Circulation ExperimentWHOI —Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Appendix H

Conversion Table and Glossary

111

111

111

111111111

Conversion Table for Distances, Areas, Volumes, and Weightsinch = 2.54 centimeterssquare inch = 6.45 square centimeterscubic inch = 16.39 cubic centimeters

centimeter = 0.39 inchessquare centimeter = O. 15 square inchescubic centimeter = 0.06 cubic inches

foot = 0.30 meterssquare foot = 0.09 square meterscubic foot = 0.03 cubic meters

meter = 3.28 feetsquare meter = 10.76 square feetcubic meter = 35.31 cubic feet

yard = .91 meterssquare yard = 0.84 square meterscubic yard = 0.76 cubic metersmeter = 1.09 yardssquare meter = 1.20 square yardscubic meter = 1.31 cubic yards

Glossary

Abyssal Plain: A flat region of the deep ocean floor.Acid-Grade Phosphate Rock: Phosphate rock that can

be used directly in fertilizer plants. A comparativelypure grade of phosphate rock that assays at 31 per-cent phosphorous pentoxide (P2O5), and is also called“fertilizer-grade” rock.

Acoustic: Of or relating to sounds or to the science ofsounds.

Active Margin: The leading edge of a continental platecharacterized by coastal volcanic mountain ranges,frequent earthquake activity, and relatively narrowcontinental shelves.

Alluvial Deposits: Secondary deposits derived from thefragmentation and concentration of chromite mineralsfrom primary stratiform or podiform deposits. Allu-vial deposits are either placers, e.g., beach sandswhich occur in Oregon and stream sand deposits inthe eastern States, or laterites, which occur in north-west California and southwestern Oregon.

Anatase: One of two major crystalline modifications oftitanium dioxide (TiO2), the other being rutile.

Argon-Oxygen-Decarburization (AOD); Vacuum-Oxygen-Decarburization (VOD): Processes forremoving carbon from molten steel without oxidiz-ing large amounts of valuable alloying elements, espe-cially chromium. AOD and VOD enable the use oflower grade, lower cost high-carbon ferrochromium.

1

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

are = 100 square meters = 119.6 square yards

statute mile = 0.86 nautical milessquare statute mile = 0.74 square nautical miles

statute mile = 1.61 kilometerssquare statute mile = 2.59 square kilometers

nautical mile = 1.16 statute milessquare nautical mile = 1.35 square statute miles

nautical mile = 1.85 kilometerssquare nautical mile = 3.43 square kilometers

kilometer = 0.62 statute milessquare kilometer = 0.39 square statute miles

kilometer = 0.54 nautical milessquare kilometer = 0.29 square nautical miles

short ton = 2000 pounds = 0.91 metric tonslong ton = 2240 pounds = 1.02 metric tons

metric ton = 1.10 short tons = 0.98 long tons

Attenuation: A reduction in the amplitude or energyof a seismic or sonar signal, such as produced bydivergence, reflection and scattering, and absorption.

Barrier Island: A long, narrow, wave-built sandy islandparallel to the shore and separated from the main-land by a lagoon.

Bathymetry: The measurement of depths of water inthe oceans. Also, the information derived from suchmeasurements.

Beneficiation-Grade Phosphate Rock: Phosphate rockthat assays at 10 to 18 percent phosphorous pentox-ide (P2O5) and requires the removal of hydrocarbonsand other impurities before processing in a chemicalplant. It may be upgraded to acid grade or furnacefeed quality.

Beneficiation: Improvement of the grade of ore by mill-ing, flotation, gravity concentration, or otherprocesses.

Benthos: the animals living at the bottom of the sea.Bioassay: a method for semi-quantitatively measuring

the effect of a given concentration of a substance onthe growth of a living organism.

Biomass: The amount of living matter in a communityor population of a single species. (It may be meas-ured either by wet, dry, or ash-free [burned] weight. )

Calcium Phosphate: Any of the calcium orthophosphatesthat may be used for fertilizers, plastics stabilizers,pharmaceuticals, animal feeds, and toothpastes. Theyinclude acid calcium phosphate, calcium dihydrogen

332

App. H—Conversion Table and Glossary ● 333

phosphate, monobasic calcium phosphate, monocal-cium phosphate, and tricalcium phosphate.

Cephalopods: Marine mollusks including squids, octo-puses, and Nautilus.

Chromic Oxide: A dark green amorphous powder thatis insoluble in water or acids. Also known as chromegreen. It is commonly used as a standard measureof chromium content in chromite.

Chromite: An iron-chromic oxide (chrome iron ore). Amineral of the spinel group, and the only mineralmined for chromium. ‘‘Chromite " is used synony-mously for chromium ore and concentrates madefrom the ore used in commercial trade. When refer-ring to the spinel mineral chromite, it is referred toas ‘‘chromite mineral.

Conductivity: The ratio of electric current density tothe electric field in a material; the reciprocal of resis-tivity.

Continental rise: That part of the continental marginthat is between the continental slope and the abyssalplain except in areas of an oceanic trench.

Continental Shelf: The part of the continental marginthat is between the shore and the continental slopeand is characterized by its very gentle slope.

Continental Slope: The relatively steeply sloping partof the continental margin that is between the con-tinental shelf and the continental rise.

Crustacean: Jointed animals with hard shells. Thisgroup includes crabs, shrimp, lobsters, and barnacles.

Deposit-Feeder: An animal that feeds on particulatematter deposited on the seafloor.

Detritus: Particulate matter resulting from the degener-ation and decay of organisms or inorganic substancesin nature.

Diversity: a measure of the numbers and kinds of spe-cies found in a particular area.

Dredging: The various processes by which large float-ing machines, or dredges, excavate earth material atthe bottom of a body of water, raise it to the surface,and discharge it into a hopper, pipeline, or barge, orreturn it to the water body after removal of oreminerals.

Electrolytic Manganese Metal: A relatively pure formof metal produced by the deposition of a metal on thecathode by passing an electric current through achemical solution of manganous sulfate; at the sametime electrolytic manganese dioxide (MnO2) is formedat the anode.

Fauna: the animal life characteristic of a particular envi-ronment or region.

Ferrochromium: A crude ferroalloy containing chro-mium that is an intermediate iron-chromic productused in the manufacture of chromium steel.

Ferromanganese Crusts: Crusts of iron and manganeseoxides enriched in cobalt that are found on the flanks

of seamounts, ridges, and other raised areas of oceanfloor in the central Pacific.

Ferromanganese Nodules: Concretions of iron and man-ganese oxides containing copper, nickel, cobalt, andother metals that are found in deep ocean basins andin some shallower areas of the oceanfloor.

Ferromanganese: A ferroalloy containing about 80 per-cent manganese and used in steelmaking. There arethree grades: (1) High-Carbon (Standard)—74 to 82percent manganese; (2) Medium-carbon—80 to 85percent manganese; and (3) Low-carbon—80 to 90percent manganese.

Filter-Feeder: an animal that feeds on minute organ-isms suspended in the water column by using somescreening and capturing (filtering) mechanism.

Flotation Separation: A method of concentrating orethat employs the principles of interracial chemistrythat separates the useful minerals in the ore from thewaste by adding reagents or oils to a water slurry mix-ture of fine particles of ore and collecting the usefulportion that “floats” to the surface in association withthe oil or reagent.

Full Alloy Steel: Those steels may contain between one-half percent to nine percent chromium, but morecommonly contain between one and four percent.Chromium is used to impart hardness.

Furnace-Grade Phosphate Rock: Phosphate rock thatassays at 18 to 28 percent phosphorous pentoxide(P 2O 5), It may be charged directly to electric furnaces

to produce slag and ferrophosphorus as byproducts

and volatilized elemental phosphorus as the primary

p r o d u c t .

Gangue: The nonmetalliferous or nonvaluable metal-liferous minerals in an ore.

Geomagnetic: Pertaining to the magnetic field of theearth.

Geophysics: Study of the earth by quantitative physi-cal methods (e. g., electric, gravity, magnetic, seis-mic, or thermal techniques).

Grade: The relative quantity or weight percentage ofore-mineral content in an orebody.

Gradiometry: Measurement of the difference in themagnetic or gravity field between two points, ratherthan the total field at any given point.

Gravity Anomaly: The difference between the observedvalue of gravity at a point and the theoretically cal-culated value. Excess observed gravity is positive anddeficient observed gravity is negative.

Hadfield Manganese Steel: A steel containing 10 to 14percent manganese; resistant to shock and wear.

Ilmenite: A black, opaque mineral consisting of impureFeTiO 3 that is the principal ore of titanium.

Interferometry: The precise measurement of wave-length, very small distances and thicknesses, etc.through the separation of light (by means of a sys-


tern of mirrors and glass plates) into two parts thattravel unequal optical paths and when reunited con-sequently interfere with each other.

Invertebrate: an animal lacking a backbone and an in-ternal skeleton.

Kroll Process: A reduction process for the productionprincipally of titanium metal sponge from titaniumtetrachloride by molten magnesium metal.

Larvae: free-living inmature forms that have developedfrom a fertilized egg but must undergo a series ofshape and size changes before assuming the charac-teristic features of the adult organism.

Laterite: Weathered material composed principally ofthe oxides of iron, aluminum, titanium, manganese,nickel and chromium. Laterite may range from soil-like porous material to hard rock.

Leucoxene: A mineral assemblage of intermediate tita-nium dioxide (TiO2) content composed of rutile withsome anatase or sphene. Usually an alteration prod-uct of ilmenite, with the iron oxide content havingbeen reduced by weathering.

Macrofauna: animals barely large enough to be visibleto the naked eye and not likely to be photographedfrom a meter or two. Average body length might beabout 1 mm.

Magnetic Anomaly: The difference between the inten-sity of the magnetic field at a point and the theoreti-cally calculated value. Anomalies are interpreted asto the depth, size, shape, and magnetization of geo-logic features causing them.

Manganese Ore: Those ores containing 35 percent ormore manganese.

Manganese Dioxide: MnO2, a black, crystalline, water-insoluble compound used in dry-cell batteries, as acatalyst, and in dyeing textiles. Also known as ‘‘bat-tery manganese.

Manganiferous Ore: Any ore important for its man-ganese content containing less than 35 percent man-ganese but not less than 5 percent. There a two typesof manganiferous ore: (1) ‘‘Ferruginous ore"--con-taining 10 to 35 percent manganese; and (2) "‘Man-ganiferous iron ore” —containing 5 to 10 percentmanganese.

Mining: The process of extracting metallic or nonmetal-lic mineral deposits from the earth. The process mayalso include preliminary treatment, such as cleaningor sizing.

Mollusk: a division of the animal kingdom containingclams, mussels, oysters, snails, octopuses, and squids;they are characterized by an organ that secretes ashell.

Nekton: Free-swimming aquatic animals.Neutron Activation: Bombardment of a material by

high-energy neutrons which transmute natural ele-

ments to gamma-ray-emitting isotopes of character-istic identity.

Ore: The naturally occurring material from which amineral or minerals of economic value can be ex-tracted at a reasonable profit.

Overburden: Loose or consolidated rock material thatoverlies a mineral deposit and must be removed priorto mining.

P2O5: Phosphorus pentoxide, the standard used to meas-ure phosphorus content in ores and products.

Passive Margin: The trailing edge of a continent locatedwithin a crustal plate at the transition between con-tinental and oceanic crust and characterized by itslack of significant volcanic and seismic activity.

Pelagic: pertaining to the open ocean.Perovskite: A natural, complex, yellow, brownish-yel-

low, reddish, brown, or black calcium-titanium ox-ide mineral.

Phosphate Rock: Igneous rock that contains one or morephosphorus-bearing minerals, e.g. phosphorite, ofsufficient purity and quantity to permit its commer-cial use as a source of phosphatic compounds orelemental phosphorus.

Phosphorite: A sedimentary rock with a high enoughcontent of phosphate minerals to be of economic in-terest. Most commonly it is a bedded primary or re-worked secondary marine rock composed of micro-crystalline carbonate fluorapatite in the form of layers,pellets, nodules, and skeletal, shell, and bone fragments.

Phylogeny: the evolutionary or ancestral history oforganisms.

Phytoplankton: the plant forms of plankton.Placer: Concentrations of heavy detrital minerals that

are resistant to chemical and physical processes ofweathering.

Placer: A mineral deposit formed by mechanical con-centration of mineral particles from weathered debris.The mineral concentrated is usually a heavy mineralsuch as gold, cassiterite, or rutile.

Plankton: passively floating or weakly motile aquaticplants and animals.

Plate Tectonics: A model to explain global tectonicswherein the Earth’s outer shell is made up of gigan-tic plates composed of both continental and oceaniclithosphere (crust and upper mantle) that “float” onsome viscous underlayer in the mantle and movemore or less independently, slowly grinding againsteach other while propelled from the rear by seafloorspreading.

Podiform-Type Deposits: Primary chromite mineral de-posits that are irregularly formed as lenticular, tabu-lar, or pod shapes. Because of their irregular nature,podiform deposits are difficult to locate and evalu-ate. Most podiform deposits are high in chromium,

App. H—Conversion Table and Glossary ● 335

and are the only source of high-aluminum chromite.In the United States, they occur mostly on the Pa-cific Coast in California and Alaska.

Polychaete: a class of segmented marine worms.Polymetallic Sulfide: A popular term used to describe

the suites of intimately associated sulfide minerals thathave been found in spreading centers on the oceanfloor.

Primary Productivity: the amount of organic mattersynthesized from inorganic substances in a given areaor a measured amount of time (e. g., gm/m2/yr).

Processing: The series of steps by which raw material(ore) is transformed into intermediate or final mineralproducts. The number and type of steps involved ina particular process may vary considerably depend-ing on the characteristics of the ore and the end prod-uct or products to be extracted from the ore.

Pycnocline: a vertical gradient in the ocean where den-sity changes rapidly.

Pyrolusite: A soft iron-black or dark steel-graytetragonal mineral composed of manganese dioxide(MnO2). It is the most important ore of manganese.

Reconnaissance: A general, exploratory examination orsurvey of the main features of a region, usually pre-liminary to a more detailed survey.

Refractory: A material of high melting point, possess-ing the property of heat resistance.

Remote Sensing: The collection of information aboutan object by a recording device that is not in physi-cal contact with it. The term is usually restricted tomean methods that record reflected or radiated elec-tromagnetic energy, rather than methods that involvesignificant penetration into the earth.

Resistivity: The electrical resistance offered by a mate-rial to the flow of current, times the cross-sectionalarea of current flow and per unit length of currentpath; the reciprocal of conductivity.

Resolution: A measure of the ability of geophysical in-struments, or of remote-sensing systems, to defineclosely spaced targets.

Rhodochrosite: A rose-red or pink to gray rhombohedralmineral of the calcite group: MnCO3. It is a minorore of manganese.

Rhodonite: A pink or brown mineral of silicate-manganese: MnSiO3.

Rutile: Occurs naturally as a reddish-brown, tetragonalmineral composed of impure titanium dioxide (TiO 2) ;

c o m m o n i n a c i d r o c k s , s o m e t i m e s f o u n d i n b e a c h

sands.

Seafloor Spreading Center: A rift zone on the ocean floorwhere two plates are moving apart and new oceaniccrust is forming.

Seamount: A seafloor mountain generally formed as asubmarine volcano.

Seismic Reflection: The mapping of seismic energy thathas bounced off impedence layers within the earth.

Seismic Refraction: The transport of seismic energythrough rock and along impedence layers.

Silicomanganese: A crude alloy made up of 65 to 70 per-cent manganese, 16 to 25 percent silicon, and 1 to2.5 percent carbon; used in the manufacture of low-carbon steel.

Sonar: Sonic energy bounced off distant objects under-water to locate and range on them, just as radar doeswith microwaves in air.

Stainless Steel: Steel with exceptional corrosion and ox-idation resistance, usually containing between 12 and36 percent chromium. Chromium contents of 12 per-cent are required to be corrosion resistant. Some low-chromium stainless steels are produced (nine percentto 12 percent), but chromium content averages about17 percent.

Stratiform Deposits: Primary chromite mineral depos-its that occur as uniform layers up to several feet thicksimilar to coalbeds. Stratiform deposits generally con-tain chromite with low chromium-iron ratio, are com-paratively uniform and extend over large areas. Thechromite occurrences in the Stillwater Complex inMontana are characteristic of stratiform deposits.

Stratigraphy: Study of the order of rock strata, their ageand form as well as their distribution and lithology.

Substrate: 1) The substance on or in which an organ-ism lives and grows, 2) The underlying material (e. g.,basalt) to which cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts arecemented.

Succession: the gradual process of community changebrought about by the establishment of new popula-tions of species which eventually replace the originalinhabitants.

Superphosphate: One of the most important phospho-rus fertilizers, derived by action of sulfuric acid onphosphate rock. Ordinary superphosphate containsabout 18 to 20 percent phosphorous pentoxide (P2O5).Triple superphosphate is enriched in phosphorus (44percent to 46 percent P2O5) and is manufactured bytreating superphosphate with phosphoric acid.

Synthetic Rutile: Rutile substitutes made from high-grade ilmenites by various combinations of oxidation-reduction and leaching treatments to remove the bulkof the iron.

Taxonomy: classification of organisms into groups re-flecting their similarity and differences (Kingdom,Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species).

Thermocline: a gradient in the ocean where tempera-ture changes rapidly.

Titanium Dioxide Pigment: A white, water-insolublepowder composed of relatively pure titanium dioxide(TiO 2) produced commercially from TiO2 minerals

.


ilmenite and rutile (both rutile and anatase ‘‘grades’ Transponder: A radio or radar device that upon receiv-are manufactured). ing a designated signal emits a signal of its own. Used

Titanium Slag: High titanium dioxide (TiO2) slag made for detection, identification, and location of objects,by electric furnace smelting of ilmenite with carbon, as on the seafloor.wherein a large fraction of the iron oxide is reduced Turbidity: cloudiness in water due to the presence ofto a saleable iron metal product. suspended matter.

Titanium Sponge: The primary metal form of titanium Zooplankton: animal forms of plankton.obtained by reduction of titanium tetrachloride va-por with magnesium or sodium metal. It is calledsponge because of its appearance and high porosity.

Index

Ad Hoc Working Group on the EEZ, recommendations: 29airlift systems: 19, 176-177Albania: 87Alvin: 145, 148, 151-152, 161, 245AMAX Nickel Refining Co.: 89Ambrose Channel: 231, 290Amdril: 156-157American Samoa: 293, 298Analytical Services, Inc.: 159andesites: 57Anti-Turbidity Overflow System: 236Arctic Research and Policy Act: 26Arctic Research Commission: 26ASARCO: 200assistance to States: 34, 291

legislative: 34, 291State-Federal Task Forces: 34, 291

Associated Minerals (U.S.A.): 105, 193Association of American State Geologists: 267at-sea mineral processing technology: 167, 185-192Australia: 96, 99, 104, 174, 307, 317

mining laws: 307-309

Baffin Island: 161barrier islands: 47bathymetric data: 17, 22, 23, 132

general: 17, 132security classification: 22, 23

Bathymetric Swath Survey System: 122, 128, 131, 256,268

bathymetric systems: 124-131airborne electromagnetic bathymetry: 130Bathymetric Swath Survey System: 122, 128, 131, 256,

268Canadian Hydrographic Service: 130charts: 124, 128deep-water systems: 126-128General Instrument Corp.: 126, 128Hydrochart: 128, 256Larson 500: 130laser systems: 128passive multispectral scanner: 130Sea Beam: 122, 123, 126-128, 131, 256, 276seafloor mapping: 126, 131-132shallow-water systems: 128-131Sonar Array Sounding System: 126, 128, 132synthetic aperture radar: 130WRELADS: 130

beach erosion: 224Becker Hammer Drill: 156-158Bedford Institution of Oceanography: 161benthic communities: 20benthic environmental effects: 215, 223, 226-227, 243,

245BIMA dredge: 169, 171, 200Bone Valley Formation: 53, 56borehole mining: 19Botswana: 96

Brazil: 39, 41, 91, 94, 171Brown & Root: 182

California Cooperative Fisheries Investigations: 262Canada: 13, 39, 45, 49, 51, 65, 96, 98, 99, 102, 104,

218, 309, 317mining laws: 309

Center for Applied Isotope Studies: 144Challenger, HMS: 158Challenger, space shuttle: 149charting: 254-256

funding: 254GLORIA program: 254-255

Chile: 98chromite sands, seabed mining scenario: 196-199

at-sea processing: 197costs: 198location and description: 196, 197mining technology: 197operation: 198profitability: 199

chromium, commodities: 91-93demand and technological trends: 93domestic production: 92domestic resources and reserves: 91foreign sources: 91properties and uses: 90, 91stockpile: 92

Clarion Fracture Zone: 122Clipperton Fracture Zone: 122coastal erosion, effects of dredging: 21coastal plain: 42, 51, 52Coastal States Organization (CSO): 34Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): 34coastline alteration: 218, 224cobalt, commodities: 89, 90

demand and technological trends: 90domestic production: 90foreign sources: 89, 90prices: 90properties and uses: 89stockpile: 89substitutes: 89

Cobalt Crust Draft Environmental Impact Statement:215, 240

cobalt crust mining: 182-183cobalt crust mining, environmental effects: 240-244

plume effects: 240-242temperature effects: 242threatened and endangered species: 243

cobalt crust sampling: 158-160and deepsea dredges: 159bulk sampling: 160measuring crust thickness: 159quantitative sampling: 159reconnaissance sampling: 159-160

Colombia: 96, 103, 171commercial potential, marine minerals: 13, 17, 19, 81

339


common depth point seismic data: 264consumption, mineral commodities: 82, 83

general: 82nickel: 83platinum-group metals: 83titanium: 83

continental: 3, 7, 41, 42, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57-59drift: 3margins: 41sea: 41, 42shelf: 7, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58, 59slope: 57

continuous casting, steel: 89continuous seafloor sediment sampler: 144, 149, 151Convention on the Continental Shelf: 29copper, commodities:

demand and technological trends: 98domestic production: 98properties and uses: 97resources and reserves: 98

coring devices: 118, 155-158box core: 156costs: 158impact corers: 155vibracores: 154, 155, 157, 158

Cross Seamount: 242-243

dacites: 57data classification: 139, 268-277

and Navy: 272, 275and NOAA: 272, 275and ocean mining interests: 273costs to scientific and commercial interests: 273foreign policy implications: 275risks to national security: 270-272

data collection and management: 21, 23, 32, 250-268academic and private laboratories: 267constraints: 251-254Department of the Interior: 263-265industry: 267-268missing components: 252NASA: 265-266Navy: 266-267NOAA: 256-263State and local governments: 267

Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study: 215, 236-242and manganese nodule recovery: 236-237objectives: 237recommendations for future research: 240

deep sea mining environmental impacts: 237-238Deep Sea Drilling Project: 137Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act: 29, 237,

305-306deep submergence laboratory: 152Deep Tow: 124, 149deep water environmental effects: 218, 226, 236-245Deepsea Ventures: 159Defense Production Act: 92deltas: 42, 54, 55Department of the Interior: 22, 56, 182

diorite intrusive: 58direct current resistivity: 140-141Dominican Republic: 96downhole sampling: 162drag sampling: 155Dredge Material Research

215dredge mining technology,dredge mining technology,

capacities: 171capital costs: 171limitations: 171operating costs: 171operating depths: 171

dredge mining technology,dredge mining technology,

174-175capabilities: 175capital costs: 175description: 174

Program, Corps of Engineers:

air lift suction: 176bucket ladder-bucket line: 171

bucket wheel suction: 176cutter head suction dredge:

dredge mining technologies, general: 18dredge mining technology, grab dredge: 177dredge mining technology, hopper dredge: 173-174

capabilities: 174capacities: 173capital costs: 174description: 173

dredge mining technology, new developments and trends:179-180

increasing operating depth: 180motion compensation, stability: 179

dredge mining technology, suction dredge: 172-173capacities: 172components: 172limitations: 172price and costs: 173types: 172

dredges, environmental impacts: 233-234drill ships: 18drilling, percussion: 156-157

Amdril: 156-157Becker Hammer Drill: 156-158vibralift: 157

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.: 105, 193ECHO I, expedition: 239ecological: 20, 21

deep-sea communities: 21information: 20

East-West Center: 73, 74electrical techniques: 139-143

direct current resistivity: 140-141electromagnetic methods: 140horizontal electric dipole: 140induced polarization: 141-143induced polarization and titanium minerals: 142induced polarization for core analysis: 143MOSES: 140reconnaissance induced polarization: 141self-potential: 141

Index ● 3 4 1

spectral induced polarization: 142spontaneous polarization: 141transient electromagnetic method: 140vertical electric dipole: 140

electromagnetic methods: 140endangered species: 243Endangered Species Act of 1973: 243Energy Security Act of 1980, Title VII: 26environmental effects: 20, 110, 215, 218, 222-223,

226-245benthic effects: 215, 223, 226-227, 243, 245deep water effects: 218, 226, 236-245mid-water effects: 215, 222-223, 226plume effects: 222, 226, 234, 239, 240-241shallow water effects: 218, 226, 227-236surface effects: 215, 222, 226

environmental impact statements: 215, 218, 240, 244Cobalt Crust Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

215Gorda Ridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

215, 244Manganese Crust EIS Project: 240

environmental monitoring: 20, 21, 228-230, 237Environmental Studies Program: 219, 264Escanaba Trough: 162exploration: 8, 22-28, 31

budget planning and coordination: 23, 27, 28costs: 25general: 8, 22pre-lease prospecting rules, proposed: 31private sector: 24State programs: 26

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 23, 29,41, 42, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65,70, 74, 169, 199, 249, 275, 292

Federal Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee:26

Federal Republic of Germany: 105, 317mining laws: 310-311

ferromanganese crusts, seabed mining technology: 182Finland: 96fish, effects of mining on: 231-233, 242,245France: 94, 317

mining laws: 309-310Frasch process: 183

Gabon: 94Galapagos Rift: 63garnet, commodities: 112General Instrument Corp.: 256geochemical techniques: 143-145

dissolved manganese: 143helium-3: 143hydrothermal discharges: 143light scattering measurements: 143methane: 143particulate metals: 143radon-222: 143SLEUTH: 143-144

temperature: 143thermal conductivity: 143water sampling: 143-144

geographic locations, United States:Alabama: 282, 291Alaska: 12, 16, 24, 40, 41, 56, 65, 67, 68, 100, 103,

128, 138, 169, 171, 177, 192Alaska Peninsula: 66, 68Aleutian Islands (AK): 41, 66Ambrose Channel: 231, 290American Samoa: 293, 298Appalachian Mountains: 49, 50Atlantic coast: 45Atlantic Ocean: 43Baker Island: 292Baltimore Canyon: 43Beaufort Sea: 41, 67, 69, 122, 253Bering Sea: 12, 40, 66, 67, 68, 69, 122, 138Blake Plateau: 12, 24, 45, 53, 94Brooks Range (AK): 67California: 12, 41, 42, 56, 57, 58, 60, 65, 122, 138,

281, 282, 291California Borderland: 61Cape Farrelo (OR): 60Cape Mendocino (CA): 57Cape Prince of Wales (AK): 67, 69Cascade Mountains: 41, 58Chagvan Bay (AK): 69Chesapeake Bay: 51, 52, 224, 290Chukchi Sea: 67, 69, 122Columbia River: 57, 60, 291Colville River: 67Connecticut: 283, 290Cook Inlet (AK): 67, 68Coquille River (OR): 60Coronado Bank: 61Delaware: 281, 283, 290Delaware River: 52Delmarva Peninsula: 47Dog Island (FL): 56Escanaba Trough: 65Florida: 12, 16, 41, 45, 53, 175, 281, 283, 290, 291Forty Mile Bank: 61Galveston (TX): 55Georges Bank: 45, 46, 52Georgia: 45, 49, 53, 281, 284, 290Goodnews Bay (AK): 12, 68Gorda Ridge: 12, 29, 42, 57, 61, 64, 65, 244-245, 291Grand Isle, (LA): 218, 224Gray’s Harbor (WA): 57, 60Guam: 292, 293, 296, 298Gulf of Alaska: 40, 65, 67, 69Gulf of Mexico: 42, 55, 56, 122, 138, 183, 253Hawaii: 43, 69, 95, 122, 182, 284, 290, 291Hawaiian Archipelago: 72, 240, 243Hoh River (WA): 60Howland Island: 292Jacksonville (FL): 53James River (VA): 51Johnston Island: 240, 243, 292


Kayak Island (AK): 67Kingman Reef: 292Klamath Mountains (CA, OR): 58, 59, 60Kodiak Island (AK): 67, 68Kuskokwim Mountains (AK): 66, 69Long Island: 47, 50Louisiana: 55, 56, 281, 284, 291Maine: 45, 94, 281, 285Maryland: 285Massachusetts: 12, 281, 285, 290Miami Terrace (FL): 53Midway Island: 292Minnesota: 95, 103Mississippi: 41, 281, 286Mississippi River: 55, 56Montana: 103Monterey Bay (CA): 57Nantucket Shoals: 45Necker Ridge (HI): 71New England: 51New Hampshire: 281, 286New Jersey: 12, 41, 47, 286, 290New York: 12, 41, 287, 290New York City (NY): 45North Carolina: 47, 52, 53, 192, 281, 287, 291Olympic Mountains (WA): 57, 58Onslow Bay (NC): 52, 53, 192Oregon: 12, 16, 40, 42, 57, 58, 59, 60, 97, 122, 244,

281, 287, 290, 291Osceola Basin (FL): 53Pacific Mountains (HI): 72Pacific Ocean: 41, 53, 63Palmyra Atoll: 292Penguin Bank (HI): 69Pescadero Point: 61Point Conception (CA): 56, 57, 58, 60Portland (OR): 57Prince of Wales Island (AK): 67Puerto Rico: 122, 291, 292, 294Raritan River: 231Rhode Island: 288, 290Salmon River (AK): 69San Andreas Fault (CA): 56San Diego Bay: 57San Francisco (CA): 57Santa Rosa Island (FL): 56Savannah River: 53Seattle (WA): 57Seward Peninsula (AK): 12, 67Smith Island (VA): 52South Carolina: 288S.P. Lee Seamount: 72St. George Island (FL): 56Sur Knoll: 61Texas: 281, 288Thirty Mile Bank: 61Trust Territories: 122, 295, 298Twin Knoll: 61Tybee Island (GA): 53, 192Vermont: 49

Virgin Islands: 122, 292, 293, 296, 298Virginia: 281, 289, 290, 291Wake Island: 292Washington: 122, 281, 289, 290Wisconsin: 100Yakutat (AK): 67Yukon River: 66

Geophysical Data System: 268Ghana: 171glacial deposition: 46, 47Global Marine, Inc.: 177Global Positioning System: 128, 131-132, 137, 268GLORIA: 116, 119-123, 128, 131, 249, 251, 254-255,

266gold, commodities: 100, 101

demand and technological trends: 101domestic production: 101domestic resources and reserves: 101properties and uses: 100

gold placers, seabed mining scenario: 200-203at-sea processing: 200costs: 203environmental effects: 203location and description: 199, 203mining technology: 200

Gorda Ridge: 122Draft Environmental Impact Statement: 215, 244

Gorda Ridge Task Force: 244-245, 291government subsidies: 23grab sampling: 118, 154, 155gravity: 17, 138, 163

airborne gravimetry: 138and navigation: 163shipborne gravimeters: 17, 138

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.: 199Greece: 87Green Cove Springs Deposit: 105Guam: 292, 293, 296, 298Guaymas Basin: 65

Hallsands (UK): 224Hanna Mining Co.: 97Harwell Laboratory: 144Hawaii Institute of Geophysics: 122Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory: 244High Energy Benthic Boundary Layer Experiment

(HEBBLE): 218Hydrochart: 128, 256hydrothermal activity: 42, 63, 64, 65

igneous rocks: 49induced polarization: 18, 141-143Inspiration Resources (Mines): 16, 40Institute of Oceanographic Sciences: 119, 255International Council for Exploration of the Sea: 215,

218, 227-228recommendations: 228zones: 228

International Hydrographic Bureau: 123, 132international law: 296

Index ● 3 4 3

International Submarine Technology, Ltd.: 122International Tin Council: 85

Japan: 39, 41, 65, 105, 173, 174, 177, 317mining laws: 311-312

John Chance Associates: 123Johnston Island: 17, 74, 182, 240, 243, 292JOIDES Resolution: 160-161Juan de Fuca Ridge: 12, 42, 57, 61, 63, 65, 122, 134,

140, 141, 143, 161

Kane Fracture Zone: 161Kingman-Palmyra Islands: 74, 292Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.: 106Koken Boring & Machine Co.: 161

Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: 26, 122, 131LORAN-C: 163-164Louisiana Purchase: 115

mafic rocks: 57magnetic anomalies: 59, 136, 137magnetic profiling: 118, 136-138

airborne surveys: 136satellite surveys: 136ship-towed magnetometers: 137sub-bottom profilers: 133total field measurements: 137

magnetometers: 17, 137Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of

1976: 6Malaysia: 171manganese, commodities:

demand and technological trends: 95properties and uses: 94resources and reserves: 95

Manganese Crust EIS Project: 240Marconi Underwater Systems: 122margins, continental: 42Marine Ecosystems Analysis Project: 262Marine Policy and Ocean Management Center: 273materials: 13, 88

conservation: 13, 88recycling: 13, 88substitution: 13, 88

Materials Act of 1947: 305metamorphic rocks: 49Mexico: 98, 99Mid-Atlantic Rift Valley: 160mid-water environmental effects: 215, 222-223, 226

heavy metals: 223, 226particulate concentrations: 222, 226

mineral commodities:chromium: 13, 14cobalt: 13, 85, 88, 89ferrochromium: 14, 15, 86, 87ferromanganese: 14, 15, 86, 87, 94lead: 13, 88manganese: 13, 14, 88markets: 8, 17, 81

nickel: 13, 14, 88phosphate rock: 14, 16, 19platinum-group metals: 13, 88steel: 14, 87supply and demand: 8, 81, 87tin: 13titanium: 13, 88titanium pigment: 14zinc: 13

mineral laws, United States: 300-306Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act: 305-306Materials Act of 1947: 305Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Land: 305Mineral Leasing Act of 1920: 300-305Mining Law of 1872: 300-304Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: 305Surface Resources Act of 1955: 300-305

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Land: 305Mineral Leasing Act of 1920: 300-305mineral occurrences, general:

amber: 39amphiboles: 49, 56, 58cerium: 71chromite: 12, 15, 39, 49, 58, 59, 60coal: 39cobalt: 53, 71, 75copper: 39, 53, 75diamonds: 41, 49, 171ferromanganese crusts: 10, 12, 16, 39, 53, 70, 71, 72,

73, 90, 96ferromanganese nodules: 10, 12, 16, 39, 53, 63, 70, 72,

75, 81, 91garnets: 49, 59, 60gemstones: 39, 49gold: 39, 40, 49, 50, 55, 58, 59, 68, 69, 171heavy minerals: 8, 14, 15, 19, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56,

59, 105, 174ilmenite: 14, 15, 51, 56, 59iron: 39, 312lead: 39, 71lime: 39magnetite: 18, 39, 59, 60metalliferous muds: 39, 174molybdenum: 71monazite: 49, 55, 60, 308nickel: 53, 75oil and gas: 18, 45phosphorite: 10, 14, 15, 52, 53, 56, 61, 69, 308, 316placers: 10, 12, 15, 18, 39, 40, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54,

56, 57, 59, 60, 67, 68, 69,platinum: 12, 49, 58, 60, 68, 171polymetallic sulfides: 8, 10, 16, 19, 39, 45, 61, 62, 63,

65, 98, 100precious coral: 39precious metals: 12, 39, 49, 50, 58, 59, 67pyroxenes: 49, 56, 58rhodium: 71rutile: 15, 49, 51, 171, 308salt: 43, 55sand and gravel: 12, 16, 39, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 54, 55,

.


57, 67, 69, 174, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315shells: 39silver: 65staurolite: 39sulfur: 43, 55tin (cassiterites): 39, 49, 169, 171, 308, 314titanium: 39, 49, 52, 60, 71tourmaline: 49vanadium: 71zinc: 39, 63, 65, 71zircon: 39, 49, 56, 59, 60, 308

mineral processing technologies: 20, 186-192at-sea deployment: 185, 191, 192at-sea v. onshore: 186classifiers: 188electrostatic separation: 190flotation: 190general: 20gravity separation: 188magnetic separation: 189, 190shipboard processing: 20trommel: 188

minerals industry, overcapacity: 8, 13Minerals Management Service (MMS): 16, 22, 26, 29,

31, 73, 136, 249, 253, 263minerals, strategic and critical: 9mining industry, state of: 85Mining Law of 1872: 300-304mining laws of other countries: 307-316

Australia: 307-309Canada: 309France: 309-310Federal Republic of Germany: 310-311Japan: 311-312Netherlands: 312-313New Zealand: 315, 318Norway: 313Thailand: 313-314United Kingdom: 314-315

miocene: 56monazite, commodities: 112monitoring, environmental: 20, 21, 228-230, 237Morocco: 16, 85multi-beam echo sounders: 22, 124-131, 249, 254, 276

National Academy of Sciences: 271Naval Studies Board: 271

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program: 26National Advisory Committee on Oceans and

Atmosphere: 271National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA):

26, 265-266Ames Research Center: 266data handling problems: 266NASA Science Internet: 265-266National Space Science Data Center: 265

National Climatic Data Center: 263National Defense Stockpile: 10, 87, 89, 92, 94, 96, 98,

99, 101, 102

National Environmental Satellite, Data and InformationSystem: 22

National Geophysical Data Center: 22, 32, 131, 136,253-256, 259-261, 266, 273

data handling problems: 260, 261Marine Geology and Geophysics Division: 259, 260mission: 259types of data held: 260, 261

National Governors Association (NGA): 34National Marine Fisheries Service: 239, 257, 259National Marine Pollution Information System: 262National Marine Pollution Program: 27National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB): 93National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978: 27National Ocean Service (NOS): 23, 163-164, 254-257,

261, 266National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA): 6, 17, 22, 25, 122, 128, 131-132, 136,143-144, 218, 219, 230, 239, 237, 253-263

National Oceanographic Data Center: 22, 32, 253, 256,261-263, 266

National Operations Security Advisory Committee: 270National Science Foundation (NSF): 22, 26, 32, 253

Division of Ocean Sciences: 253, 267, 273Division of Polar Programs: 267

National Seabed Hard Minerals Act of 1987 (H. R. 1260):29

National Security Council: 271, 275Naval Ocean Research and Development Activity: 123,

130Naval Oceanographic Office: 266navigable waterways, dredging: 229navigation: 162-164

ARGO: 163-164circular error of position: 163data classification: 268Global Positioning System: 163-164, 268LORAN-C: 163-164Mini-Ranger: 163Precise Positioning Service: 163Raydist: 163-164Standard Positioning Service: 164

Netherlands: 297, 317mining laws: 312-313

neutron activation: 145New Caledonia: 96New England Offshore Mining Environmental Study:

215, 227, 229, 230recommendations: 230

New York Harbor Sea Grant studies: 231New Zealand: 167, 171, 315, 318

mining laws: 315, 318nickel, commodities:


Nippon Kokan: 182NORDCO: 161

Index ● 3 4 5

North Sea, sand and gravel: 228Northern Mariana Islands: 292, 295, 298Norway: 89, 318

mining laws: 313nuclear exploration techniques: 18, 118, 144-145

continuous seafloor sediment sampler: 144, 149, 151cookie maker: 144neutron activation: 145X-ray fluorescence: 144

Ocean Assessment Division, NOAA: 263Ocean Drilling Program: 137, 160Ocean Mining Associates: 239oceanic crust: 42, 45Office for Research and Mapping in the Exclusive

Economic Zone: 252Office of Energy and Marine Geology: 254, 255Office of Management and Budget (OMB): 26Office of Naval Research: 266Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, NOAA:

257Office of Oceans and Atmospheric Research: 257Office of Science and Technology Policy: 271Office of Strategic and International Minerals, MMS: 263offshore mining technologies, transfer of oil and gas

technology: 185optical imaging: 152-154

ANGUS: 152Argo: 152-153data transmission: 152-153fiber optic cables: 152-153

Jason: 152-153Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC):

85Outer Continental Shelf: 22, 56, 59Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment

Program: 262Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: 6, 23, 28, 263, 300,

305

Pacific Geosciences Center: 140Pacific Islands, mineral occurrences: 95

Belau-Palau: 74Federated States of Micronesia: 74French Polynesia: 72Guam: 74Howland-Baker: 74Jarvis: 74Johnston Island: 17, 74, 182Kingman-Palmyra Islands: 74Marshall Islands: 72, 74Samoa: 74Wake Islands: 74

Pacific Ocean: 3, 12, 16passive margins: 42peridotite deposits: 49Peru: 98, 99Philippines: 87phosphate rock:

demand and technological trends: 109

domestic production: 109domestic resources and reserves: 108foreign competition: 108properties and uses: 107

phosphorite, Onslow Bay (NC), seabed mining scenario:207-209

costs: 209location and description: 207mining technology: 207processing technology: 207profitability: 209

phosphorite, Tybee Island (GA), seabed mining scenario:204-206

at-sea processing: 206costs: 206location and description: 204mining technology: 205processing technology: 205profitability: 206

pigments: 91, 93, 96, 104, 107chromium: 91, 93nickel: 96titanium: 104, 107

plate tectonics: 3, 43, 61, 69platinum-group metals, commodities: 102-103

demand and technological trends: 103domestic production: 103domestic resources and reserves: 102foreign sources: 102properties and uses: 102

Pleistocene: 45, 46, 57, 65, 67plume environmental effects: 222, 226, 234, 239, 240, 241polymetallic sulfides, seabed mining technology: 160-162,

181-182concepts: 181conditions: 181problems: 182sampling: 160-162

positioning: 162-164Preussag AG: 182prices, commodity: 83, 85

general: 83nonmetallic: 85speculation: 85

Puerto Rico: 122, 291, 292, 294, 298Pungo River Formation: 52

radiometric dating: 71Raritan River: 231Reagan Proclamation (No. 5030): 5, 6, 275reconnaissance surveys: 17, 18, 56reconnaissance technologies: 119-139refractories: 93remotely operated vehicle (ROV):

advantages and limitations: 146-148and hard mineral exploration: 151and navigation: 163ANGUS: 151Argo: 152capabilities: 149-151


comparison with manned submersibles: 146-148costs: 148-149Deep Tow: 149instrumentation: 146

Jason Junior: 151needed technical developments: 151-152Solo: 149towed vehicles: 149-150types: 146

Republic of South Africa: 41, 85, 87, 91, 94, 102, 175rift zone: 43, 63

S.P. Lee: 116-117, 245sampling technologies: 12, 154-162

characteristics of: 154-155crust sampling: 158-160placer sampling: 154-158polymetallic sulfide sampling: 160-162representative sampling: 154-155

sand and gravel (see mineral occurrences, general):demand and technological trends: 111domestic production: 111domestic resources and reserves: 111seabed mining ventures: 199

Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory: 231satellites: 22schist: 57Scotian Shelf: 45Scripps Institution of Oceanography: 26, 131, 132, 140,

263Sea Beam: 122, 123, 126-128, 131, 268, 276Sea Cliff: 245Sea Grant: 215, 227, 229, 231, 257

data collection: 257New York studies: 215, 227, 229, 231

seabed mining:competitiveness: 15, 16, 17, 19, 167economic potential: 8, 17legislation: 23, 28, 30, 31technology: 10, 15, 17, 181, 182world: 39

SeaMARC systems: 122-124, 128, 132seamounts: 42, 72, 74seasonal environmental effects: 224, 226sedimentary rocks: 45, 57, 58, 67seismic reflection: 17, 22, 118, 132-136

chirp signalsprofiles: 47, 56sub-bottom profilers: 133three-dimensional seismic surveying: 135

seismic refraction: 118, 132-136self-potential: 141shallow water environmental effects: 218, 226, 227-236

dredges and: 233-234ICES: 228minimizing effects: 232-233

Shell Oil Co.: 200ships, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

131Surveyor: 131, 268, 270

Discoverer: 131Davidson: 131, 271

side-looking sonars: 17, 116, 119-124Deep Tow: 124, 149GLORIA atlas: 122GLORIA: 116, 119-123, 128, 131Interferometric systems: 123long-range side-looking sonar: 116, 119-122mid-range side-looking sonar: 118-119Mini-Image Processing System: 119SeaMARC systems: 122-124, 128, 132short-range side-looking sonar: 118-119, 124Systeme Acoustique Remorque: 124

Sierra Leone: 104, 171silt curtain: 235-236site-specific technologies: 139-162SLEUTH: 143-144solution/borehole mining technology: 183Sound Ocean Systems: 162Southwest Africa: 169sphalerite: 63spontaneous polarization: 141spreading centers, seafloor: 3, 41, 63, 64State-Federal Task Forces: 34, 291State-owned or State-controlled minerals companies: 14,

86State resource management: 281strategic and critical minerals: 9, 88, 94, 96, 98, 101, 102Strategic Assessment Branch, NOAA: 218, 219, 257

atlases: 221, 257Strategic Petroleum Reserve/Brine Disposal Program: 262Stillwater Complex: 92, 103Stillwater Mining Co.: 103subduction zone: 3, 41, 57Submerged Lands Act of 1953: 4submersibles, manned: 18, 145-152

advantages and limitations: 146-148Alvin: 145, 148, 151, 152, 161and hard mineral exploration: 151battery-powered: 145capabilities: 149-151comparison with remotely operated vehicles: 146-148costs: 148-149free-swimming: 145Johnson-Sea-Link: 148needed technical developments: 151-152

superalloys: 88, 91, 96surface environmental effects: 215, 222, 226Surface Resources Act of 1955: 300

tectonic processes: 41territorial sea: 4Territories, United States: 55, 292-299tertiary sediments: 57, 58Texas A&M University: 123Thailand: 169, 171, 318

mining laws: 313-314Third World: 13Titanic: 124, 151, 152, 154

Index ● 3 4 7

titanium, commodities: 104-106demand and technological trends: 106domestic production: 105domestic resources and reserves: 104foreign sources: 104properties and uses: 104

titanium heavy mineral sands, seabed mining scenario:193-196

at-sea processing: 193costs: 196location and description: 193mining technology: 193operation: 194

Trail Ridge Formation: 52Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Study: 263Truman Proclamation (No 2667): 6Turkey: 87, 91

ultramafic rocks: 49, 57, 58, 60Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (U.S.S.R.): 91, 98,

102, 105, 109United Kingdom (U.K.): 102, 119, 169, 173, 218, 224,

297, 314, 318mining laws: 314-315

U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea: 3, 7, 29, 64, 70,76, 275

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE): 12, 20, 26, 47,224, 227, 231, 233, 240

dredging of navigable waterways: 229U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM): 22, 26, 59, 160, 192, 249,

265U.S. Coast Guard (USCG): 249U.S. Department of Defense (DOD): 253, 276U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): 26, 249, 262U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI): 263U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 26, 229,

232, 249

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): 17, 22, 25, 51, 71, 119,141, 122, 131, 142, 143, 159, 249, 253-254, 265

U.S. Navy: 23, 32, 118, 128, 131, 249data collection: 266-267data classification: 270-272, 275-277

U.S. Treasury: 101University National Oceanographic Laboratory System:

132

vibracores: 143Virgin Islands: 122, 292, 293, 296, 298

Wake Island: 292water column environmental effects: 222-223, 226wave pattern alteration: 218, 224Williamson & Associates: 162Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: 26, 131, 152,

161, 273wurtzite: 63

X-ray fluorescence: 144

Yugoslavia: 91

Zaire: 85, 89, 98Zambia: 89, 98Zellars-Williams, Inc.: 205Zimbabwe: 87, 91zinc, commodities: 99, 100


zircon, commodities: 112

Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier · Foreword Throughout history, man has been...

Documents

Transcript of Marine Minerals: Exploring Our New Ocean Frontier · Foreword Throughout history, man has been...