Payments and contributions with respect to the exploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles
1. The coastal State shall make payments or contributions in kind in respect of the exploitation of the non-living resources of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
2. The payments and contributions shall be made annually with respect to all production at a site after the first five years of production at that site. For the sixth year, the rate of payment or contribution shall be 1 per cent of the value or volume of production at the site. The rate shall increase by 1 per cent for each subsequent year until the twelfth year and shall remain at 7 per cent thereafter. Production does not include resources used in connection with exploitation.
3. A developing State which is a net importer of a mineral resource produced from its continental shelf is exempt from making such payments or contributions in respect of that mineral resource.
4. The payments or contributions shall be made through the Authority, which shall distribute them to States Parties to this Convention, on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed and the land-locked among them.
Right now, companies developing in our extended continental shelf (ECS) pay a royalty to the US government of 12.5-18.75%. What this treaty would do would create another 1-7% royalty that would have to be paid to the International Seabed Authority (ISA), based in Jamaica. That royalty rate would probably be taken out of the US Treasury's cut but given the way government's work, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes additive. Either way, American money would be stolen by a UN sanctioned international body and given to other members of the ISA based on 'interests and need". Yup, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. And in this case, the "needy" end up to be such states such as Zimbabwe, which is both incredibly poor AND landlocked. Sure, Zimbabwe is only poor because it has been run by the dictatorial and borderline genocidal Robert Mugabe, but the UN & ISA probably won't care about that. Hell if the UN were to exclude countries run by murderous and corrupt dictators, it would dramatically shrink in membership, and they can't have that.
And can someone please tell me what we get out of the UN anymore? Sure, I understand what the idea of it was at one point, when it was dominated by democracies (in its very early days), but now what? It seems to mainly be a vehicle for dictators to get prestige and an international forum and for "developing" nations to try to rob the "developed" nations of the world in some grand redistribution scheme.