Minerals Report - International Seabed Authority

prospecting would be more applicable in the case of these two types of
mineral deposits.
SUMMARY OF THE EXCHANGE OF VIEWS.
Following the Secretary-General’s presentation, participants
exchanged views on a number of the matters that he had raised. The exchange
of views focussed on the differences between seafloor massive sulphides and
crusts deposits, and polymetallic nodules, the costs involved in delineating
deposits of the two new types of deposits, the rights of prospectors, whether
the Authority should devise a single new mechanism for all other resources of
the Area based on the common heritage principle in order to circumvent years
of negotiation each time a new mineral is discovered, and alternates to the
parallel system as framed for polymetallic nodules such as a carried interest in
operations for the Authority.
Discussions on estimates of equal commercial value, differences
between evaluating seafloor massive sulphides, cobalt-rich ferromanganese
crusts and polymetallic nodule deposits, and prospector’s rights.
Discussions on the differences between seafloor massive sulphides,
cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts and polymetallic nodules originated from a
consideration of the need to submit two sites of estimated equal commercial
value. One participant said that the matter was one of technicalities because it
should not be too difficult for a prospective applicant for exploration to
submit two sites of equal estimated commercial value to the Authority
whether for seafloor massive sulphides or cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts
deposits. In the case of cobalt-rich crusts deposits, this participant said that
from a layman’s point of view, the primary issue would be to find seamounts
containing these deposits. After that he continued, one seamount might
contain crusts that are 25 cm thick, and the other seamount crusts that might
be 10 cm thick. The size of areas submitted in respect of these two sites might
then be 10 sq km and 25 sq km respectively, to satisfy the requirement to
submit two sites of equal estimated commercial value. This participant
pointed out that the same requirement has been made for polymetallic
INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY 474