I get your point. I think we are trying to achieve the same general goal. I both of our scenarios, we still need a group of people determining what is right and wrong, how to ally nations, and run things. Being fair has little to do with it. It is about protecting the people and preventing coercion. Any organization leading anything from a municipality, a national government, international governance body, or global government or organization can be corrupt. I see it in my own community. If done right, it will help the global situation.

The "Global Government " is just what most people fear given the crazy liberal influence to "be fair" by making certain nations pay for others who are more corrupt and have squandered their wealth on presidential palaces and offshore accounts, while their people get screwed. That is what the "New World Order" is about. No, the answer would be a global treaty, with nations signed up to provide police forces as needed for enforcement. Look a China, they need almost the rest of the world allied to do anything to them, and they want the whole South China Sea for that very reason.

Who has the right to sell or lease parcels of the ocean floor is a good question posed by many. Given the many different perspectives posed by many of the world's leaders, it appears that something like this is something wars will be fought over. Considering the progression of mankind and the supposed evolution of our species, we should be able to come up with a solution. What about a global government that has jurisdiction over the globe? The problem is trying to find people who will do the right thing, be impartial, follow natural law. They would not have to be doing it for money other than a reasonable living and would do it to make the world a better place. They would be there not to control or legislate the people, but to protect the people and the environment as well as to guide us into the future. There are more facets to such issues than one could address in a simple forum, but I think a Global Government would be a start.

It's just another frontier, mine it. The environmentalists will always complain, let them eat cake. If it's international waters first come, first served.

I am surprised that Obama didn't push it through when he had both houses of Congress. He probably spent his political capital on Obamacare and thought he would have Hillary sign the treaty when she moved into the Oval Office.

Notice the U.S. is not a signatory? Also note that China is a signatory and has been found in violation.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/what-w...

So, I think we can see how well the UN will do in regulating the ocean and use. In fact the only nations I could find that have actually followed the Convention was Tonga and Naru not exactly military or political powerhouses. I do not see anyone stopping a microsecond if they they think there is money to be made.

Interesting point, Doc. Thanks.

Oh-ho-ho-ho. I meant ideally. Whoever seeks to mine the ocean floor, should build at least a squadron of armed fast-attack submarines so they can defend their parcel. If possession is nine points of the law, defensible possession is all that plus the remaining tenth point.

You have a very good point, and that would follow not just the political issues, but the competitive issues. If you can stay close to your source of work and income, there is less costs than going from surface to bottom regularly, so the incentive is to make it to where you would not need to.

The socialist headquarters - The UN owns everything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...

privatize and mine away....

Just keep in mind that a lot of what is mined on the ocean floor is manganese nodules, which grow incredibly slowly. Mn precipitates out of the water at a really slow rate, and if we mine them now, they're essentially non-renewable. I have confidence that technology will improve enough to make mining safe for people (and the environment) as well as economical, but there are only so many resources out there.
As everyone has said below, property rights are a huge issue.

Ah, but who writes the leases? Who are the sea lords, and who hires the superintendents and the leasing agents? To whom go the royalties?

Remember, I'm talking about "international waters" here. Already someone has said all landed nation-states would likely expand their territorial water limits so that no such place as "free ocean" would remain, and you would always be within someone's territorial waters no matter where you sailed or steamed. I suggest that the technique of mining the ocean floor would also carry with it the seeds of a technique for building more than an undersea mining colony, but an independent city-state.

There are alternatives, such as this one http://stocksocial.com/petrolithium-n... . The wastewater brought up from oil and gas mining is a concentrated brine, extremely salty and rich in mineral content. While the focus of the article is lithium, I'm certain there are other valuable minerals in the brine, which is referred to as "fossilized" prehistoric ocean water. If this technology becomes widely adopted it kills two birds with one stone: it provides a low cost, low environmental impact way of "mining" scarce minerals; and it solves the problem of wastewater disposal, suspected of triggering earthquakes.

By all means mine the ocean floor and fark the environmentalists. Yes, do the needed homework first but not for their sake but for the sake of the miners.

One of my favorite episodes was the one where the crew started taking out the smaller subs to scour the ocean bottom for bioluminescent pearls...

... which turned out to be squid droppings! Laughed my head off...

And the ecology issue will be the big thing. I am betting you will see the UN decide only the UN can do any mining responsibly, and gather the profits for the "greater good".

AKA: China. That is exactly what they are doing, in that the law is set to measure from land. So they just make some new land, and also push their economic boundary out to 200 miles.

Hey, that was a good show, with talking dolphins! Better than talking heads....or politicians..

Leases for mineral rights similar to offshore oil drilling.

It will likely play out similar to Offshore drilling rights sold to the highest bidders. But then you will run into this Type of thing just with different names attached.
Obama blocks offshore drilling rights in Arctic, Atlantic
Posted by Bloomberg
Date: December 20, 2016
President Barack Obama banned new offshore oil and gas development in more than 100 million acres of the U.S. Arctic and undersea canyons in the Atlantic Ocean, an announcement certain to provoke a fight with the Republican-led Congress and his successor in the White House.

In a announcement coordinated between two of the world’s biggest oil producers, Canada committed to freeze new offshore leasing in its waters and review the matter every five years.

“These actions, and Canada’s parallel actions, protect a sensitive and unique ecosystem that is unlike any other region on Earth,” Obama said in a written statement. “They reflect the scientific assessment that even with the high safety standards that both our countries have put in place, the risks of an oil spill in this region are significant and our ability to clean up from a spill in the region’s harsh conditions is limited.”

The move — announced a month before Obama leaves the White House — is sure to draw a legal challenge, and there is scant legal precedent on the matter. President-elect Donald Trump may rescind Obama’s order, but the 1953 statute Obama is invoking doesn’t include an explicit provision for reversal and that question could be tied up in court for years.

Although Obama’s decision was cast primarily as safeguarding 31 ecologically precious Atlantic canyons and “fragile Arctic waters,” it was a major victory for environmental activists who have been arguing that even broader climate change concerns should drive the White House to rule out drilling in mostly untouched U.S. waters. Environmentalists said the decision sends a message to the world that the U.S. knows the warming Earth can’t afford to burn “extreme oil” locked under now-protected Arctic and Atlantic waters.

Of course. How else are we going to be able to relive that glorious production called "SeaQuest DSRV"? ;)

Before this discussion goes any further, someone must come up with what property rights inhere in any particular part of the ocean floor, what authority will recognize such rights, and what authority will defend them?

Now for waters that, by international law and convention (i.e., treaties), "belong" to a particular government or governments, the solution becomes obvious. The government at some level must establish a Recorder of Deeds to portions of the ocean floor that lie underneath the "territorial waters" of a particular nation-state.

But what about international waters?

My answer: "The Sea is a Harsh Mistress." In other words, to paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, the best respecters, protectors, and enforcers of property rights to the floor of the ocean, in waters not belonging to any "landed" government, will be the founders, armies, and navies of independent city-states that people will build on the ocean floor--and on that part of it that they are prepared to defend. The real source of the property rights that "Captain Nemo" (Verne J., Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea) enjoyed, was the armament of his pioneering submarine Nautilus. Likewise, before you can have property rights at sea, you must be prepared to defend a particular patch of water from any actual or potential attackers.

If it makes sense economically then yes. If not then no.

Exactly. The first thing I thought of, when I read the headline, is: what property rights inhere in any part of the ocean floor, and who vests them?