The case for ocean iron fertilization field trials

[Greg Rau]



https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/29768659261420631

“ The next generation of OIF field trials must be larger (ca. 1000 km2) and longer (>3–6 months) to observe the full response and return to baseline conditions. Potential risks will be assessed, while using community engagement and co-design to create go/no-go decision points. Planning and extrapolating impacts on regional and global scales will require modeling, with the overall goal to provide unbiased assessments and open-source protocols that can guide responsible and rigorous decision-making for any further OIF.”

[Dan Galpern]

Greg, do you agree?

In other words do you, like the authors, reject the notion that "we know enough already to rule out OIF for mCDR [so that] hence no further research is needed."

Dan

On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 1:22 PM Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/29768659261420631

“ The next generation of OIF field trials must be larger (ca. 1000 km2) and longer (>3–6 months) to observe the full response and return to baseline conditions. Potential risks will be assessed, while using community engagement and co-design to create go/no-go decision points. Planning and extrapolating impacts on regional and global scales will require modeling, with the overall goal to provide unbiased assessments and open-source protocols that can guide responsible and rigorous decision-making for any further OIF.”

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/FE21A5AA-E311-4720-845B-0114375FB825%40sbcglobal.net.

[Chris Van Arsdale]

On a related note, we started a model run to try to put OIF (finally) to rest. And of course, as it goes in science, the model ended up telling me that I was wrong and that OIF had more potential than I was expecting. So we are doing a larger set of models at the moment.

Better quantifying flux below the mix layer would be nice from an empirical study.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANNDMDr8NiskbMe86DtTuAimbeTpy0ALNCNnZVBDvLoO2SPnwQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Greg Rau]

Dan,

I agree with the authors’ statement:

“ While some contend we know enough already to rule out OIF for mCDR and hence no further research is needed (e.g., Strong et al., 2009). We argue that the unknowns for large-scale OIF deployments are large and that there is considerable merit in learning by doing—indeed it is a necessary path forward. We can build upon past experiments that shed light on how to conduct large unenclosed open ocean manipulations, which successfully showed a large response to phytoplankton growth and surface pCO2 drawdown in some parts of the ocean to relatively small amounts of Fe.”

I’m skeptical that OIF can be safe and effective at climate relevant scales, but under the circumstances, let’s find out for sure using carefully designed, smaller scale experiments

Greg

On Feb 6, 2026, at 1:38 PM, Dan Galpern <dan.g...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANNDMDr8NiskbMe86DtTuAimbeTpy0ALNCNnZVBDvLoO2SPnwQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ken O Buesseler]

Greg et al.- Thanks for agreeing for the need for additional studies of OIF for mCDR. We at ExOIS (Exploring Ocean Iron Solutions), set up our group to "Explore" what is needed.  This includes not only OIF field studies, but models, improvements in MRV and eMRV, and after setting up a code of conduct (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01774-0) , we continue to work with social scientists and others to engage the public to build a case for both emissions reduction and studies of the many flavors of mCDR. This paper responds to the question “Why do we need (more) OIF field trials”? and “Can’t we just deploy now?” It ended up being much more, serving as a template for how important it is to bring in a large group of experts to get the science right in order to build trust.