Click for next page ( 17


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 16
3. INTERNATIONAL GEOSCIENCE ACTIVITIES IN U.S. ECONOMIC INTERESTS BACKGROUND In the past, international activities of U.S. geoscientists in industry, academia, and government have contributed significantly to the growth of our economy. American geologists have identified and appraised foreign sources of raw materials for U.S. industries and have assisted in foreign exploration and production activities of U.S. companies. Geoscientists have stimulated American exports through the strengthening of foreign resources programs, institutions, and industries requiring U.S. goods and services and have opened channels of communication with resource agencies in host countries. The Committee on Global and International Geology has concluded that the international role of American geosciences today is not adequate to meet present and future U.S. economic needs. For example, there is no coherent U.S. policy on either hard minerals or fossil fuels, a conclusion documented in the recently published book International Minerals: A National Perspective (Agnew, 1983~. The U.S. economy is rapidly becoming dependent on other nations for raw materials, trade, and investment. This dependence has created a growing need for information, contacts, and cooperative arrangements developed through geoscience activity abroad. Industry alone does not and probably cannot have a coordinated sustained program to fulfill this need, most especially for the nonfuel minerals. The need for international geoscience information and personnel has expanded into new areas such as banking. Many American banks now have their own professional staffs involved in the collection, review, and appraisal of data on mining and energy to support their investment decisions (Agnew, 1983~. The growing dependence of the U.S. economy on resources from the rest of the world is indicated by a February 1984 news release from the State Department stating that in 1982 the U.S. imported $255 billion worth of goods including a fifth of the raw materials that we consume. In a December 1983 news release, the State Department noted that U.S. exports to the less-developed countries increased a third in the past decade and now total over $83 billion; U.S. private investment in these countries has been increasing over 11 percent per year and now exceeds $50 billion; these countries provide a large proportion of our raw 16

OCR for page 16
17 material imports including "more than half our imports of such important metals as tungsten, bauxite, tin and cobalt." Our dependence on foreign sources for a large fraction of our petroleum needs is well known and is increasing despite our best efforts to expand domestic supplies. Faced with this growing dependence on foreign raw materials, the United States should, in its own best interests, increase its geoscience activities in the developing countries. Such an integrated effort to establish a comprehensive international geoscience program to support U.S. economic interests currently does not exist. The State Department has increased its attention to the need for information on mineral resources. A new training program has been started, and regional resource officers at our embassies are being given increased responsibilities. This is a good first step, but the program would be more effective if it included professional geologists and engineers. Moreover, the State Department cannot deal with the whole problem alone. While the United States lacks focus in international geoscience efforts, other industrial countries have implemented and expanded their programs. The Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom all have large government-supported international geoscience assistance programs and are intensifying their efforts in the less-developed countries. To understand the gravity of this situation, it is important to review the evolution that has occurred in the U.S. economic position abroad as related to the role of geoscience programs. EVOLUTION OF GEOSCIENCE ACTIVITIES ABROAD IN RELATION TO U.S. ECONOMIC INTERESTS A quarter of a century ago, the U.S. economic position in relation to the rest of the world began to undergo a significant change. Before the 1960s, American industry had a relatively uncomplicated status in the foreign arena. Our oil and mining companies had ready access to foreign resources, exploration and development by U.S. companies abroad were welcomed on favorable and nonrestrictive terms by developing countries, and competition for leases from other industrialized countries was minimal. U.S. service and supply contractors were preeminent, and American equipment and expertise dominated foreign markets. U.S. geoscience programs circled the globe, primarily through extensive U.S. government foreign assistance projects, and critical information regarding foreign resources, programs, and institutions required by American companies and investors was readily available. Since 1960, our economic position abroad has changed considerably, not only because of greater U.S. dependence on foreign raw materials and markets, but also because of increased competition from other industrialized countries, rising costs, greater risks of achieving successful foreign raw material exploration and production, increased demands and astuteness of producing countries, and broader diversification of the U.S. worldwide economic interests.

OCR for page 16
18 The evolution of American economic interests and geoscience activities abroad may be reviewed through six subject areas: energy and mineral resources, seabed resources, polar studies, geologic hazards and the environment, remote sensing, and contractural services and equipment. Energy and Mineral Resources The growing dependence of the United States on foreign sources of raw materials is certainly a matter of concern for national security and foreign policy. It is also especially important because of its impact on the American economy. U.S. petroleum and mining companies must continually seek raw materials abroad and purchase materials from foreign suppliers. This is due both to higher production costs and declining reserves in the United States and to the attempt to assure adequate long-range supplies. In order to secure supplies of overseas resources, U.S. industry needs comprehensive information concerning known and potential undiscovered resources, alternative sources of a particular commodity, leasing and investment opportunities, and resource institutions in order to compete successfully. The problem is far bigger than any company; hence the government should take steps to assure our competitiveness and the security of an adequate supply of all necessary minerals. As already stated? U.S. economic interests abroad flourished for about 15 to 20 years after World War II. Petroleum exploration and development progressed rapidly in Venezuela, Nigeria, and Indonesia. The huge oil resources of Saudi Arabia were tapped by U.S. companies and led to the formation of the Arabian-American Oil Company (ARAMCO). The history of ARAMCO is both a chronicle of successful application of the geosciences and an illustration of the evolution of circumstances that can and do dramatically affect U.S. economic interests. After the 1932 discovery of oil in Bahrain, the Standard Oil Company of California became interested in the oil potential of adjacent unexplored Saudi Arabia and in 1933 negotiated a concession. California Arabian Standard Oil Company was formed to manage the exploration activities. Shortly thereafter, Texaco, with established eastern hemisphere marketing operations, became a partner in the Bahrain and Arabian undertaking, resulting in the organization of Caltex Petroleum. The Saudi Arabian operation was renamed Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) in 1944. As the magnitude of Saudi Arabian reserves became apparent, Exxon and Mobil, with their sizable additional marketing facilities, became partners in 1948. ARAMCO held 100 percent ownership of the oil within the concession and paid a per ton extraction royalty until 1950, when Saudi Arabia decreed an income tax levy. This basic arrangement continued into the 1970s, modified by numerous renegotiations regarding the profits division between ARAMCO and the government of Saudia Arabia, resulting

OCR for page 16
19 in an overall increase in the latter's share of the company. In 1973, the government of Saudi Arabia obtained a 25 percent participation in ARAMCO's crude oil concession and production assets. Then in 1974, Saudi Arabia acquired a 60 percent participation position, and in 1976, agreement was reached for the government to take over essentially 100 percent of ARAMCO's operation. The ARAMCO shareholders, Chevron, Texaco, Exxon, and Mobil, continue to provide various professional/technical services to ARAMCO, while ultimate approval of ARAMCO's business programs and budgets resides with the Saudi Arabian government. The history of expropriations, renegotiations, policy changes, and related problems that have affected U.S. mining and petroleum companies, especially in the developed countries, has been extensively documented. Many of the problems were a result of a wave of nationalism, coupled with misunderstanding of the local procedures to be followed in resource exploration and production. In some countries, this nationalistic policy has subsided. New concessionary arrangements have been negotiated, and opportunities exist for more. The committee believes that the general retrenchment of official U.S. geoscience activities abroad removes a viable vehicle that could improve our overseas image and provide new cooperative arrangements beneficial to private industry. Of particular concern is the current low level of U.S. government-supported activity in the exploration and assessment of resources of developing countries, where scientific and technical assistance is urgently needed to maintain and increase the raw material production. Private investment in mining within the less industrialized but developed countries has risen, as shown by the International Economic Studies Institute (1976, p. 22) statistics, but activity in the less-developed countries has been smaller and erratic (Korsten, 1983, p. 78~. A major raw-material-consuming nation such as the United States cannot afford to neglect the strengthening of the developing country resource industries as potential sources of supply and as potential markets. These countries should not feel that the United States is interested in their well-being only to the extent that American interests are threatened. The International Economic Studies Institute therefore recommended that we give higher priority to resource objectives in our bilateral relations with other countries overall and improved cooperation on resources matters. Fundamental changes in institutions, procedures, and policies will have to be made in less-developed countries through government-sponsored assistance programs in order to improve investment opportunities for private capital. In a recent address, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Resources and Food Policy stated that: the best way for us to demonstrate our concern that this economic interdependence in minerals trade remains beneficial to all parties is to take every opportunity to strengthen and solidify our ties with producing countries, to encourage them to invest in and develop resources for the future, and help

OCR for page 16
20 them search for new sources of supply and ways of maximizing existing resources. In the field of nonfuel minerals, U.S. geoscientists were active abroad during the 1950s and 1960s and identified and assessed many important foreign mineral resources, e.g., iron and manganese in Brazil; chromite, copper, and nickel in the Philippines; and potash in Thailand. Most of these efforts were carried out under the foreign assistance program. Major mineral districts and sedimentary basins were mapped and evaluated for raw materials. Such activity, together with the development of counterpart resource institutions and programs in host nations, benefited the American economy in terms of identifying sources of raw materials, leasing and investment opportunities, and needs for contractual services. Through the publication of maps and reports by organizations such as the U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Geological Survey (1968, 1976), U.S. companies and investors obtained substantial information regarding opportunities abroad. Moreover, the strengthening of geoscience programs in the host countries improved their capacity to trade with the United States through mutually beneficial joint ventures. The National Commission on Materials Policy (1973, Chapter 9, pp. 11-15) pointed out the need for encouraging U.S. investment abroad in the extractive industries through creation of investment climates attractive to the investor and acceptable to the host country. The commission urged that this be achieved in part through intergovernmental cooperative arrangements. One of the most direct ways to achieve these objectives is through government-sponsored geoscience cooperation and resource assistance programs. Similarly, the International Economic Studies Institute (1976, p. v) recommended that the United States should "seek closer cooperation on raw materials matters." The National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980 directs the President to "promote cooperative research and development programs with other nations for the equitable and frugal use of materials and energy." An adequate response to these directives should involve a well-integrated and comprehensive international geoscience program. By way of contrast, other industrialized countries have major programs already in place. The growing international competition from these countries, which was reviewed by the National Commission on Materials Policy (1973, Chapter 9, pp. 15-18), has, in recent years, been strengthened through geoscience initiatives. The Federal Republic of Germany has a well-financed, worldwide resource research and assessment program carried out by the Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstofte (BRG). France has a similar program integrating mining and technological operations, through the Bureau de Recherches Geologique et Miniere (BRGM), and recently initiated the Center for International Geological Exchanges (CIFEG). Japan has a joint industry/government Institute for International Resources Development, which deals with foreign mineral and petroleum development agencies, expanding technical cooperation based on untied loans (Kuroda, 1985), and strengthening human resources, e.g., training

OCR for page 16
21 (Arita, 1985~. The Soviet Union and the United Kingdom also have major programs, and Canada, Norway, and Sweden are rapidly expanding their international geoscience cooperation. One of the most important requirements for U.S. industry and investment abroad is geological and resource information. Although a considerable amount of such information is available, especially in libraries of the USGS and in the Library of Congress and through foreign mineral statistics published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, no comprehensive effort has been made to collect, catalogue, and maintain the maps, published reports, and unpublished documents that can provide up-to-date information about known and potential resources. Of special concern is the deficiency of available maps of many areas of the world and the lack of a library for a vast number of valuable but unpublished documents that flow from international commissions, workshops, and organizational activities. Even those foreign maps and unpublished reports that may exist in the United States are difficult to identify, locate, and obtain. The United States needs a more comprehensive, centralized, and readily accessible library and information system for foreign maps and documents, along with an integrated data center dedicated to international geoscience activities. Landsat data that can partially fill this gap have become too expensive for many potential users. Many new data about geology and resources in other countries could be obtained and made available for U.S. industry and research if the United States could respond to requests from developing countries for help in compiling, citing, and publishing information and manuscript maps in the fields of resource agencies abroad. Such requests have been received by the State Department, the USGS, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines from more than 20 countries in recent years, including Peru, Bolivia, Thailand, the Philippines, and several African countries. But, except in a few instances, the funds and capacity for such assistance have been too restricted. The United States should assist in compiling, processing, and publishing the vast amount of unpublished material that has accumulated in-geological and resources agencies in many developing countries. The value of such a cooperative effort has already been demonstrated by the Circum-Pacific Map Project. This project, initiated in 1972 as an activity of the Circum-Pacific Council on Energy and Mineral Resources, has involved scientists and organizations from over 30 countries. It is engaged in compiling and publishing a series of 47 geologic, tectonic, and resources maps at scales of 1:20,000,000 to 1:30,000,000 covering the Pacific Basin and surrounding continental areas (Reinemund et al., 1982; Reinemund, 19849. In 1984 the Circum-Pacific Council became affiliated with the American Association of Petroleum Geologists as its only international section. Along with other activities of the council, the map project represents one of the largest and most significant international geoscience initiatives in the past decade. It has contributed markedly to the availability of information on geology and resources of the Pacific region. Although it is a nongovernmental initiative, it has received extensive cooperation and some key funding from several government agencies, notably the USGS and

OCR for page 16
22 the Department of Energy. This is an excellent example of a situation in which a small but necessary expenditure of government money and cooperation has contributed to the success of a major international geoscience initiative. (It is interesting to note that the success of the Circum-Pacific Map Project has led to widespread discussion on having a similar project in the Atlantic region, and the International Union of Geological Sciences is currently working on plans for such a project.) Although the activities of the Circum-Pacific Council are limited to the Circ~,m-Pacific region, its efforts are exceedingly valuable to the United States. It constitutes a most significant and fundamental international geoscience effort for all of the Pacific-rim countries, including the United States. While the Council is not heavily funded, it has accomplished its many objectives, and has successfully addressed cooperative projects that are essential for definitive resource assessment between many of the Circum-Pacific countries. Seabed Resources The Circum-Pacific Map Project is currently publishing a new map of the distribution and metal contents of seabed manganese nodule concentrations in the Pacific Basin. This compilation, along with the ongoing studies of seabed sulfide deposits in the eastern Pacific (Rowland et al., 1983) and cobalt crusts in the central Pacific (Clark et al., 1984), are indicative of the growing interest in seabed resources. International geoscience research of the ocean basins has been led by the United States through projects such as the International Decade of Ocean Exploration and the Deep Sea Drilling Program. These efforts will continue through the Ocean Drilling Program and geophysical research projects now being developed. From an economic viewpoint, the extent and evolution of U.S. interests have been described by Flipse (1982) through his explanation of the background for the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (Public Law 96-238) and the subsequent U.S. refusal to sign the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (Brown, 1983~. The recent proclamation by President Reagan of the Exclusive Economic Zone has tripled the area of U.S. jurisdiction over offshore resources, which should expand plans to assess American seabed resources. Past ocean drilling and geophysical research programs, together with offshore surveys by oil and mining companies, might indicate that U.S. geoscience efforts related to seabed resources are fully adequate. There are, however, three major problems. First, much of the accumulated data have not been adequately synthesized, compiled, and interpreted as related to resource assessment. Scientists have been more interested in making overall interpretations, in testing fundamental concepts, and in obtaining more data to test these concepts than in detailed analysis of available data. Second, more detailed studies of selected areas are needed both within the U.S. economic zone and in other areas of potential interest to U.S. companies to provide

OCR for page 16
23 a base for resource assessments. Third, more cooperative research programs are needed to develop better relationships with other countries and to aid in evaluating and developing their resources. The program of studies in East Asian Tectonics and Resources (SEATAR) carried out jointly by the Coordinating Committee for Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in Asian Offshore Areas (1980) and the intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission with help from the National Science Foundation could serve as a model for this type of effort. Although the United States is the major power in seabed research, extensive and well-directed programs are being carried out by the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Most of their activities are more directly related to their particular resource interests than are U.S. government-sponsored activities. For this reason, the United States should maintain an aggressive international seabed resource-oriented geoscience program, fully utilizing the data already available, and should seek closer involvement of other countries. Polar Studies Arctic exploration and possible development of resources in the polar regions are receiving increasing attention. In the Antarctic, there is an even greater need for intensive geoscience programs because of the larger areas and multinational interests involved. The United States has continued a long-range program of topographic mapping of Antarctica for many years, which has included resource, stratigraphic, structural, paleomagnetic, and geophysical studies. Offshore surveys have been sporadic and limited to specific areas of interest, relying in large part on cooperative arrangements with other nations. The Antarctic cruise of the U.S. Geological Survey's S.P. Lee in 1984, which was supported also by the Circum-Pacific Council, is a step in the right direction. In view of increasing economic interests in the Antarctic region, an expansion of U.S. geoscience activity, especially offshore, is recommended. The USGS (1978) has issued an assessment of Antarctica resources and is compiling geological, geophysical, and resources information on the region through the Circum-Pacific Council's Map Project. The more information that is compiled and evaluated, the better the decisions that will be made regarding alternative regimes for mineral resources development. This information is important for the renegotiation of the Antarctic Treaty. - Geologic Hazards and the Environment Natural catastrophes affect economies and the capacity for production and trade. These effects of geologic and hydrologic hazards--earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, subsidence, and floods--are costly to the U.S. economy both at home and abroad. International geoscience programs for the study and mitigation of

OCR for page 16
24 such phenomena are therefore relevant to U.S. economic interests as well as to science. Such programs commonly involve the study of processes that are active in the United States but are better displayed abroad. This is a bright spot in our foreign program. Geological hazard phenomena have received considerable attention under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Program. The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) of the Agency for International Development has sponsored hazard-response and risk-analysis projects, especially in connection with volcanism and earthquake activity. That office is currently sponsoring regional earthquake studies in Southeast Asia and in the Andean countries and volcanic hazard studies in several nations. And sponsored by OFDA, the USGS has recently initiated a training program primarily for individuals and agencies responsible for planning and managing hazard investigations and disaster-response programs in developing countries. Under a joint USGS/NSF cooperative program with the State Seismological Bureau of China, U.S.-made earthquake monitoring equipment is being installed in China. Data from subsequent studies utilizing these detection devices are expected ultimately to improve the understanding of earthquake mechanisms along the U.S. Pacific Coast. Similarly, American equipment is being installed in Indonesia as part of a volcano-monitoring program. The potential economic benefits to the United States of international geoscience programs dealing with hazards and environment can be significant but are difficult to quantify, especially the intangible benefits of goodwill that would result in expanded U.S. trade and investments. The American commitment to overseas hazard program funding may be adequate in relation to our overseas economic interests. Nevertheless, there is need for improved coordination, staffing, and continuity of the U.S. international program involving disaster-response and environmental degradation studies. Remote Sensing The United States led the world in the development and application of remote sensing technology in the late 1960s and during the 1970s. This leadership resulted in large part from the earth resources (Landsat) satellites; from a well-coordinated program of research on remote sensing applications, including lunar and planetary investigations; from experimental satellites, such as Seasat; and from establishment of a highly efficient worldwide satellite data reception, processing, distribution, and training network. The consequent growth in the recognition of the value and application of remote sensing data to geological, hydrologic, agricultural, and oceanographic research projects was phenomenal. Because remote sensing provides a synoptic mechanism for the mapping of terrains, facilitates recognition of remote or obscure structures, aids in the discovery and assessment of mineral resources, accelerates the survey of land use, and creates a data base for regional syntheses, it provides an exceptionally

OCR for page 16
25 effective basis for international geoscience cooperative programs. Such projects should include research on fundamental geologic and geophysical problems, training nationals of other countries, and exposing U.S. commercial and scientific capabilities to the rest of world. In the 1960s, improvement in sensors and data management followed the first satellite launchings, and optical remote sensing expanded rapidly both in spectral and in spatial resolution. By the mid-1970s both passive and active microwave sensors were placed on free-flyers. Researchers interested in the applications of these new types of data, such as those from the multispectral scanner on EATS-1, soon recognized the need for such data, and sensors and missions were designed to meet expanded research objectives. The availability of synoptic and repetitive coverage from space encouraged large segments of the scientific community into direct involvement with remote sensing both as users and as planners. Surveys, which were initially stand-alone projects, merged with the more conventional geological, geophysical, and geochemical data bases. This integration generated the need for sophisticated data management and an increased desirability for worldwide dissemination of the data. U.S. leadership was particularly visible in distributing scientific results, in assisting other countries to organize receiving stations, and in training nationals. Today U.S. leadership in remote sensing applications is rapidly diminishing. This is partly a result of aggressive international competition from other industrialized countries, such as the French SPOT and European Space Agency ERS satellite systems, a forthcoming international Japanese resources satellite system, and the Netherlands remote sensing training programs. But in part the weakening of American research satellite programs and applications is due to our increasing emphasis on the military use of remote sensing equipment. Recent changes in the Landsat program can have a serious international impact on projects that assess hazards and disasters, crop production, precipitation, desertification, and other natural phenomena. Costs of remote sensing data from U.S. satellites are increasing, in part because of greater competition from other countries with larger space study subsidies and in part because the United States has diverted budgetary resources from the cheaper free-flyers to the more expensive manned Shuttle missions. Decentralization of facilities for processing and training has responded to the objective of commercializing space-related activities in the manner of communications technology, but this policy has not taken into account the needs of more specialized user communities, or the goodwill created in assisting other countries on a government-to-government basis. The decline in support for research applications, both here and abroad, is limiting the options for American researchers, restricting their advantage over other nationals in this field, and reducing the U.S. lead in training capability as well. It is also forcing a curtailment in the operations of American research institutions. Other nations will not likely adhere to an open-sky policy and to the concept of freely disseminated information, because they see a strategic and commercial value in such data. Such developments will adversely affect

OCR for page 16
26 U.S. participation in international cooperative geoscience programs. These factors, combined with the lack of forceful leadership and clear objectives, are reducing the opportunities to use this technology as a basis for strengthening U.S. geoscience participation abroad. It is particularly unfortunate that U.S. support for remote sensing applications and research is restricted and disorganized on a worldwide basis. New satellite systems now being conceived, especially in geophysics, offer extensive possibilities for international cooperation and joint research on geoscience and resources problems. Such remote sensing mapping programs, if implemented, could help alleviate the widespread nonavailability of conventional maps. Another aspect of the decline in U.S. leadership in space is that remote sensing contractors and equipment manufacturers are finding a rapid increase in competition from other advanced countries. Thus U.S. industry is losing international markets for services and equipment to aggressive competitors from other countries. Contractual Services and Equipment Market One of the significant economic benefits of strong international geoscience programs is the entree created for U.S. contractual services and equipment sales. Two decades ago, contractual services, such as geophysical surveys, and most field and laboratory equipment used in foreign resource agencies and programs, were purchased largely from the United States. This is no longer true. Although this change was caused by several factors, the decline in U.S. geoscience activities abroad, especially in the American technical assistance program, has been an important contributing factor. Other industrialized countries have provided scientific advisors, funds, equipment, and services, thereby giving entree to contractors and suppliers at the expense of U.S. contractors. Although it is not possible to measure accurately the total economic loss to the United States, there is little doubt that American companies have had an increasingly difficult time competing in markets where foreign suppliers have the advantage of geoscience cooperation sponsored by their home country. The United States needs a vital and well-integrated program to aid in promoting the use of U.S. private and/or government consultants and expertise; assisting U.S. contractors, services, and equipment operating abroad; and establishing improved linkage between U.S. business and foreign resources agencies. Other industrial nations, especially Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany, and France, are aggressively moving in this direction, realizing that geoscience programs abroad can have far-reaching economic benefits for them, as well as for host countries. SU=ARY Contributions to American economic interests made by U.5 geoscience activities abroad may be summarized as follows:

OCR for page 16
27 Energy, mineral, and water resources of interest to the U.S government and investors have been assessed, and guidance given to their exploration and development. Seabed resources and their potential selected areas. . have been surveyed in Data on geologic and hydrologic hazards and environmental conditions have been collected, especially data pertinent to U.S. Operations in other countries. Information has been compiled on resource programs and agencies abroad, on potential markets for American contract services and equipment, and on competitive organizations from industrialized countries. Existing and past U.S. geoscience activities should be viewed as bases for strengthening our geoscience programs abroad to meet a growing need in all these categories.