Minerals Report - International Seabed Authority

Minerals Report - International Seabed Authority Minerals Report - International Seabed Authority

05.02.2013 Views

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

nodules exploration. He pointed out that in the case of nodules, the interested entities started from scratch, and without any laws to protect their investments. He said that the entities that were interested in developing nodule resources took the financial risk to prospect the Area for polymetallic nodule deposits. Referring to the minimum expenditure requirement for registration as a pioneer investor of US$30 million (1982) as provided for in Resolution II of the Convention, he also said that the concerned entities had already gathered the information required to prove that the two sites were of equal commercial value. The participant however made the observation that at present it appeared unlikely that any potential applicant would risk tens of millions of dollars without the assurance that it would be authorized to continue to develop a mine. As a result, this participant suggested that the Authority should invent a system that protects this initial investment stage of the development of these resources by issuing “an exclusive prospecting right”, so that the applicant could start its operation in a broad area. Later, the area could be split in two. Another participant made the observation that the situation described for the polymetallic nodule regime was different. This participant said that the system for polymetallic nodules worked because prospecting and prospected areas were kept secret. He emphasized this point by referring to the considerable amount of overlaps in prospected areas in the Clarion- Clipperton zone. He further added that it required seven years of negotiations by those concerned to yield a complicated result. This participant expressed support for providing prospectors for seafloor massive sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts with an assurance and guarantee that protect their investments, and a priority right to mineable areas within which prospecting is to occur. In response to a question whether a pioneer status was being requested, this participant responded by saying that what is sought is an opportunity for prospectors to start prospecting and to acquire sufficient data in order to fulfil the parallel system. This participant stated that the period during which the prospected area is protected would be to enable the operator to acquire the data necessary to identify two areas of equal commercial value. Another participant noted that there is a big difference between twodimensional deposits like polymetallic nodule deposits and the three- INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY 475

nodules exploration. He pointed out that in the case of nodules, the interested<br />

entities started from scratch, and without any laws to protect their<br />

investments. He said that the entities that were interested in developing<br />

nodule resources took the financial risk to prospect the Area for polymetallic<br />

nodule deposits. Referring to the minimum expenditure requirement for<br />

registration as a pioneer investor of US$30 million (1982) as provided for in<br />

Resolution II of the Convention, he also said that the concerned entities had<br />

already gathered the information required to prove that the two sites were of<br />

equal commercial value. The participant however made the observation that<br />

at present it appeared unlikely that any potential applicant would risk tens of<br />

millions of dollars without the assurance that it would be authorized to<br />

continue to develop a mine. As a result, this participant suggested that the<br />

<strong>Authority</strong> should invent a system that protects this initial investment stage of<br />

the development of these resources by issuing “an exclusive prospecting<br />

right”, so that the applicant could start its operation in a broad area. Later,<br />

the area could be split in two.<br />

Another participant made the observation that the situation described<br />

for the polymetallic nodule regime was different. This participant said that<br />

the system for polymetallic nodules worked because prospecting and<br />

prospected areas were kept secret. He emphasized this point by referring to<br />

the considerable amount of overlaps in prospected areas in the Clarion-<br />

Clipperton zone. He further added that it required seven years of<br />

negotiations by those concerned to yield a complicated result. This participant<br />

expressed support for providing prospectors for seafloor massive sulphides<br />

and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts with an assurance and guarantee that<br />

protect their investments, and a priority right to mineable areas within which<br />

prospecting is to occur. In response to a question whether a pioneer status<br />

was being requested, this participant responded by saying that what is sought<br />

is an opportunity for prospectors to start prospecting and to acquire sufficient<br />

data in order to fulfil the parallel system. This participant stated that the<br />

period during which the prospected area is protected would be to enable the<br />

operator to acquire the data necessary to identify two areas of equal<br />

commercial value.<br />

Another participant noted that there is a big difference between twodimensional<br />

deposits like polymetallic nodule deposits and the three-<br />

INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY 475

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!