GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

139 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Nov 14, 2014, 5:23:19 AM11/14/14
to geoengineering

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722

The first of a two-part series.

GEOENGINEERING:

Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

Joshua Learn, E&E reporterClimateWire: Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The first of a two-part series.

For the past 100 years, the Haida First Nations tribe in Canada has watched the salmon runs that provided its main food source decline. Both the quantity and quality of its members' catch in the group of islands they call home, off the coast of British Columbia, continued to drop.In the late 1990s and early 2000s, they became determined to do something about it. They built a hatchery, fixed watersheds damaged by past logging practices and sent more fish into the ocean for their multiyear migrations.

But the larger influx of fish that went out didn't return, and the search for better solutions for the small village of Old Massett on the north end of Graham Island in British Columbia eventually led the Haida down a path that culminated in the largest ocean fertilization project of its kind ever attempted.In the summer of 2012, the Haida Salmon Restoration Council (HSRC) joined forces with a California businessman, Russ George, and dribbled 100 tons of iron sulfate into Canadian and international waters in the Pacific Ocean off the back of a ship.

SPECIAL SERIES

Did an ambitious 2012 experiment to "fertilize" the ocean with iron filings reduce CO2? That remains a controversy. But Pacific salmon seem to have enjoyed it.The idea, promoted by George, was that this would stimulate the growth of plankton, which would be eaten by larger ocean dwellers and begin a feeding frenzy by the juvenile fish heading into the ocean. That might ultimately lead to higher survival rates and better fishing results when the fish came back to the island streams to spawn.

The sheer size of this experiment, when it was discovered, sent a shock wave through communities of environmentalists and scientists concerned about geoengineering -- schemes to intentionally manipulate the planet's climate. They called the actions a "blatant violation" of international laws set up to restrict the undertaking of such vast experiments due partly to the unknown secondary effects they may cause (Greenwire, Oct. 17, 2012).

But for the past two years, salmon have flowed into rivers along parts of the Pacific Northwest in sometimes record numbers, and questions remain unanswered about the possible success, failure or effects of the experiment.

"I can't stand up and give you a rock-solid statement that says A equals B," said Jason McNamee about whether the experiment had something to do with the massive sockeye and pink salmon runs for the past two years. McNamee is a former director and operations officer of HSRC and still sometimes acts as spokesman for the corporation. But, he said, "the iron sulfide bloom is a likely factor contributing to those runs."

Salmon, volcanoes and money

Where climate change entered into this vast fishing experiment is that it offered the possibility for George and the Haida to cash in on it.In the mid-2000s, British Columbia's Premier Gordon Campbell was pushing hard to end a moratorium of offshore oil and gas development in the Canadian Pacific.

McNamee said that representatives from a big oil company showed up at Old Massett and asked village officials about potential carbon offset investments -- something the Haida weren't particularly familiar with at the time.

The oil executives didn't have any plan in mind and perhaps only made the offer in an effort to promote goodwill with some of the coastal people in the area. There wasn't a huge market for carbon offsets in North America at the time, but the prospect of funding got the Haida leaders thinking about ways to fund further operations to help bring their fish back.

Ocean fertilization generally involves using a mix of iron sulfate monohydrate -- used also as a livestock feed supplement and in the iron pills used by people who are anemic -- with iron oxide, or rust, into a liquid solution then dumping it into the sea. The principle is that phytoplankton, or algae, eat the iron. The algae are gobbled up by zooplankton, including species like krill or copapods -- food that salmon prefer.Most experiments of ocean fertilization are done by Mother Nature. Dust storms and volcanic eruptions can drop large amounts of iron particles into the sea.Sometimes it's hard to link these activities directly with salmon productivity, but some experts think that volcanic eruptions do offer rare glimpses into what would occur with really big influxes of iron into the ocean.

"The two biggest [salmon] runs that have occurred are both associated with volcanoes," said Tim Parsons, a professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia and a research scientist at the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Canada. "In 1956, an eruption of a volcano in Kamchatka produced a run of 20 million salmon in 1958 in the Gulf of Alaska, and more recently, in 2008, a volcanic eruption on the Aleutians produced the run of 35 million salmon in 2010."

Parsons said that the volcanoes "spew iron over the whole of the Pacific," triggering a zooplankton buffet for salmon."

Since the need to grow rapidly in this new ocean environment is a priority for the very young salmon, their abundant survival was for once assured, resulting in the phenomenal returns," he said. "Alternative hypotheses on this whole process are difficult to find in any of the reports on sockeye salmon returns in 2010."

Fertilizing the ocean?

McNamee said that none of the experts had predicted the huge run of sockeye in 2010, but "we would say that it's our belief that the volcanic eruption and the volcanic bloom is the cause of that high return."

In 2012, the Haida and George released iron filings from a ship along a zigzagging path that extended over 5,000 nautical miles, timing the dump to coincide with an ocean eddy that spread the iron across the migration routes of different species of salmon. Satellites showed that the resulting plankton bloom covered around 13,500 square miles of ocean.

The sockeye run occurring this year -- two years after their experiment and in line with sockeye reproduction cycles -- in some ways resembles the pattern of a volcanic eruption in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska in 2008, just as it does the large pink salmon run in 2013 (the pinks have shorter cycles).

But McNamee stops short of making a direct connection.

"The experiment did what it was designed to do," he said. "The experiment was successful because it grew zooplankton, which should have fed the salmon crop in the path of their migration."

But George, the California businessman and director of HSRC before he was later fired, has been a lot more vocal in supporting the project.

"Clearly the 2012 work succeeded beyond our wildest expectations bringing back more than a half a billion additional salmon alone," he said in an email. "Countless other species of marine life were similarly restored and revived."

"The fish only came back because standing biomass in our region of the NE Pacific was even more tremendously restored."

Not everyone agrees with George's statements. Rich Zable, the director of fish ecology divisions at the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northwest Fisheries Science Center, said that the good sockeye runs that struck the northern Snake River and Columbia River this season were the result of "a combination of positive things happening up and down the coast."

"I wouldn't say it's going to hurt," he said of HSRC's experiment. "But I wouldn't point my finger at this and say this is what caused the good run."

He said that salmon tend to travel thousands of miles in their migrations up and down the coast. Ocean upwellings also bring up iron, but can be variable between years, and cooler waters that occur sometimes can also lead to less predation on salmon."

We think it's a combination of cooler conditions and few predators that leads to good return years," he said.Another study that came out Monday in Nature Geoscience shows evidence that natural iron fertilization may not have as great an effect as thought on carbon sequestration. The authors found that while phytoplankton suck CO2 from the atmosphere, much of them could be eaten by other organisms like sea snails that produce calcium carbonate shells that sink to the bottom. But the organisms also emit CO2 back into the atmosphere in the process of creating the shells."

Anything that's going to increase nutrients is going to help the populations," he said. But "if the fish are passing through, that's one snapshot in their lifetime."

The bigger picture

The trouble with the result of the experiment, though, is that it may not necessarily be as simple a question as whether or not it worked for the salmon.One problem is that even if the project did benefit the salmon, and even if the resulting algae bloom managed to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, salmon and CO2 aren't the only things at risk here."

From an ecosystem standpoint, when you perturb the ecosystem, you don't really know how it's going to manifest itself in the food chain," Zable said.

He said there is a potential for the iron to have a negative impact on other levels of food chains in the oceans. George Leonard, chief scientist of the Ocean Conservancy, said he agrees with many of the problems that Zable has with the experiment."Anything done at that scale could potentially have big changes in the ecosystem," Leonard said.

He said that the Ocean Conservancy doesn't formally have a position on this issue, or on geoengineering in general, but he questioned whether any conclusions can be made on a one-off experiment like this.

"I think it's a great example of a really bad experimental design. If you want to determine cause and effect, that's not the way to do it," he said. "Simply dumping stuff into the ocean and saying, 'See? I told you so' -- that's not science."

"There could be one or a million confounding variables," Leonard said.But while the experts are still uncertain about what happened during this vast experiment, salmon fishermen have been pleased. The salmon that ate these zooplankton have been seen in record numbers as they swam upstream in the Pacific Northwest, according to news stories from "Marketplace" and the Toronto Globe and Mail.Tomorrow: Lawyers get involved.AdvertisementTwitter: @JoshuaLearn1 | Email: jle...@eenews.net

Robert Tulip

unread,
Nov 14, 2014, 6:12:21 PM11/14/14
to andrew....@gmail.com, geoengineering
What a great vindication for Russ George. This article raises issues that all concerned with the politics, economics and science of climate change should consider.  The environmentalists and UN agencies who have persecuted Russ George should apologize and hang their heads in shame.  The science on iron fertilization is not settled, but the indications are very positive.
 
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722  "for the past two years, salmon have flowed into rivers along parts of the Pacific Northwest in sometimes record numbers .... "the iron sulfide bloom is a likely factor contributing to those runs."
 
It looks like the opposition to the successful Haida Salmon experiment had less to do with protecting the environment than with using climate politics to damage the capitalist system.  The real moral hazard here is that climate politics has been hijacked by people who have an agenda to reduce economic growth on principle, and an ideological hostility to the profit motive.  It appears these critics are oblivious to environmental science due to their eagerness to cast business as the enemy.  The fact is, profitable CDR enterprises are likely to be the main contribution to a possible future stabilisation of the climate.  This is insufferable for some who have put all their eggs in the emission reduction basket led by expanded government regulation and tax.
 
The Pacific salmon iron algae project occurred in a safe environmental location with no apparent risk as a limited and well planned scientific experiment aimed to deliver significant economic and environmental benefits, targeted to poor indigenous communities.  It provided a structured replication of much bigger natural volcanic processes. The fact that this field experiment was not under academic auspices should be secondary to the actual methods and ideas, and the indifference of universities is more a condemnation of the failure of experts to be pro-active and get involved.  Russ George’s logic is impeccable and simple: feed baby fish and more of them will survive. 
 
The false alarms raised about this pioneering work are entirely unjustified, as this article shows.  The intimidating attacks directed against this salmon algae work have been damaging for science, growth and ecology. 
 
Robert Tulip
Disclaimer: Personal Views Only

From: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>
To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 14 November 2014, 21:23
Subject: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Charles H. Greene

unread,
Nov 14, 2014, 9:33:42 PM11/14/14
to rtuli...@yahoo.com.au, andrew....@gmail.com, geoengineering
No definitive conclusions can be drawn from the George experiment. However, the observations are interesting and should encourage a more rigorous, large-scale experiment, with controls and replication, by an interdisciplinary team of ocean scientists.

Bill Stahl

unread,
Nov 16, 2014, 7:37:37 PM11/16/14
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com

 To the extent that an increased salmon catch was due to OIF, the Haida experiment turns the usual CDR issue on its head. Instead of a CDR idea looking for any possible economic justification to bring it over the line into financial feasibility, this would be a financially feasible aquaculture technique with a potential add-on subsidy from carbon pricing. Has anyone compared what the Haida spent vs. what the salmon industry got out of it, to calculate a rough ROI? (Allowing for a range of estimates of how much was due to OIF*). I can easily imagine a bunch of fishermen in a Ketchikan bar swapping stories about what a great season they had because of the Haida project, then talking about  subsidizing this money-maker with carbon credits.

‘Slippery slope’ arguments are usually used to warn against GE research (e.g. Hamilton’s ‘No, Let’s Not “Just Do The Research”) but there is a slippery slope in carbon pricing too. The carbon prices cited by environmental advocates as sufficient to change the energy system quickly would be far higher than those required to get many CDR schemes into action, including ones like OIF that are anathema to many of the most vocal supporters of carbon pricing. And if an OIFapproach can already make money unsubsidized for existing, and influential, economic interests then investment will flow to it.  If you support a strong carbon price  - and that’s the organizing principle of climate change advocacy across the board -  you may already pulling an oar in this particular rowboat, even if you hate the idea.

Which is OK by me. But perhaps the people who so annoy Tulip say the things they do because they figured this out too.

Any suggestions of other fisheries that might be amenable to this approach? Clearly most species do not gather at as convenient a feeding-trough as a Haida Eddy, but surely there are some.

 *Of course how effective the Haida OIF was as CDR is a separate issue.

David Lewis

unread,
Nov 17, 2014, 11:14:59 AM11/17/14
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com, andrew....@gmail.com, rtuli...@yahoo.com.au
Just because a snake oil salesman happened to find out along with the rest of us that there are interesting indications that, for once, his bottles may actually have contained something efficacious doesn't mean his critics on this OIF project were "persecuting" him. 

Eg:  This is the same Russ George who claimed his company was about to bring to market room heaters powered by cold fusion.  See:  "Unveiling the mystery of cold nuclear fusion... an interview with scientist Russ George". 

A typical Russ Georgism of that time:  "Dr. Fleischmann's genius inspired a generation of audacious researchers, and there are now thousands of scientific reports confirming the reality, safety and stunning promise of solid-state fusion energy. Aided by his insight and most recent discoveries, we believe it is time to start delivering that potential to the world."  He had photos of cold fusion devices working in his lab - I've even seen a photo I can't find now of the prototype room heater.  It was supposed to be on the market by 2007. 

A cold fusion and Russ George debunker in 2008 pubished this:  "Highlights of Russ George's Business and Science Activities"

Robert Tulip

unread,
Dec 5, 2014, 2:59:16 PM12/5/14
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
David Lewis commented on November 18 about Russ George and the Haida Salmon Ocean Iron Fertilization Project.  David said 
"Just because a snake oil salesman happened to find out along with the rest of us that there are interesting indications that, for once, his bottles may actually have contained something efficacious doesn't mean his critics on this OIF project were "persecuting" him."
 
It is not fair or correct to describe Russ George as a snake oil salesman, despite the problems that David describes in George's work dating from 1999 on another topic.  In discussing Ocean Iron Fertilization, the relevant issues are what authoritative researchers have to say
 
 “Dr. Tim Parsons, an oceanographer and professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia said “iron dumping from the volcano in 2008 produced a diatom bloom which coincided with the migration of young sockeye from the Fraser into the ocean. The Haida dump may have simulated this effect.”   http://www.lionsbay.net/index.php/ocean-fertilization-insights.html
 
The evidence indicates record salmon yields due to Russ George's OIF experiment.  An article in National Review states 
“In the Fraser River, which only once before in history had a salmon run greater than 25 million fish …, the number of salmon increased to 72 million.”  

That is nearly triple.
“… a year following our 2012 ocean pasture restoration, …salmon came back in tremendous numbers, more than in all of recorded history.  In many regions such as SE Alaska nearest to our ocean restoration project location… baby salmon … were treated to a feast…The SE Alaska Pink catch in the fall of 2013 was a stunning 226.3 million fish. This when a high number of 50 million fish were expected.”
 
Saying we should not fertilize the ocean to increase fish stocks is comparable to saying all farmers should be banned from using fertilizer.  The fishing industry should take up iron fertilization at scale, to help reverse the plunder of the oceans and make fisheries more sustainable.  The likely climate impact is a bonus.
 
Here is an example of the unjustified persecution of Russ George. L. Jim ThomasResearch Director, ETC Group, wrote an article in 2013 in Huffington Post headlined Don't Dump Iron -- Dump Rogue Climate Schemes.  Thomas called it a “pretense that dumping iron in the ocean to stimulate a plankton bloom would … maybe even bring back salmon stocks.”  Thomas calls the event a “rogue ‘ocean fertilization’ scheme” and claims “the global chorus of concern was after all legitimate.” Thomas explains his campaign: “Most worryingly … HSRC haven't yet dumped … their support for geoengineering. Their business plan is still to seed the ocean with iron.”  
 
Given the apparent success of the experiment to increase salmon yields, and the simple coherence of the theory of change, that feeding baby fish helps more of them to survive, the language about a rogue snake oil salesman is unjustified.  Thomas has no basis to say the “global chorus was legitimate”.  The ‘global chorus’ which Thomas helped to orchestrate does indeed appear to be an example of unjust persecution.
 
In the world according to Thomas and his ETC Group, “losing the rogue geoengineer may be good for optics.”  Such statements appear to advocate the priority of spin over science, of politics over evidence, of ideology over economics.   Of greatest concern here is the stultifying effect of such campaigns to prevent important scientific research with high potential to contribute to climate stabilisation and protection of biodiversity.  The misuse by UN bodies of the London convention on the dumping of wastes at sea to persecute a legitimate, effective and valuable scientific and commercial experiment is the real scandal in this story. 
 
Robert Tulip
Disclaimer: Personal Views Only. 
 
 

From: David Lewis <jrando...@gmail.com>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com 
Cc: andrew....@gmail.com; rtuli...@yahoo.com.au 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2014, 3:14
Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
 
Just because a snake oil salesman happened to find out along with the rest of us that there are interesting indications that, for once, his bottles may actually have contained something efficacious doesn't mean his critics on this OIF project were "persecuting" him.  

Eg:  This is the same Russ George who claimed his company was about to bring to market room heaters powered by cold fusion.  See:  "Unveiling the mystery of cold nuclear fusion... an interview with scientist Russ George".  


A typical Russ Georgism of that time:  "Dr. Fleischmann's genius inspired a generation of audacious researchers, and there are now thousands of scientific reports confirming the reality, safety and stunning promise of solid-state fusion energy. Aided by his insight and most recent discoveries, we believe it is time to start delivering that potential to the world."  He had photos of cold fusion devices working in his lab - I've even seen a photo I can't find now of the prototype room heater.  It was supposed to be on the market by 2007.  

A cold fusion and Russ George debunker in 2008 pubished this:  "Highlights of Russ George's Business and Science Activities"
 

On Friday, November 14, 2014 3:12:21 PM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote:
What a great vindication for Russ George. This article raises issues that all concerned with the politics, economics and science of climate change should consider.  The environmentalists and UN agencies who have persecuted Russ George should apologize and hang their heads in shame.  The science on iron fertilization is not settled, but the indications are very positive.

David Lewis

unread,
Dec 6, 2014, 11:07:08 AM12/6/14
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com, rtuli...@yahoo.com.au
I'm sorry to have written something anyone might take to be supportive of what the ETC group has been doing in regard to geoengineering. 

However, whenever I think about Russ George, the fact that he once claimed to be in the process of bringing to market a lab tested cold fusion room heater does come into my mind. 

My grandfather was a salmon fisherman on the British Columbia coast.  I worked with him on his boat when I was a teenager.  Hence my great interest when I first heard about what the Haida had done.  I supported the iron fertilization project at the time.  I was critical of ETC at the time.  I'm with those who say what is one application of 100 tonnes of iron compared to the sewage that is dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, or compared to the annual application of fertilizer to farms on land?  I support further research into fertilizing the ocean.  I think most people who fish the British Columbia coast will be very supportive of further research. 

Bill Stahl

unread,
Dec 24, 2014, 4:56:57 AM12/24/14
to jrando...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, rtuli...@yahoo.com.au
 A belated response:
This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per Bhaskar) was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the results in the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the previous record (and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - what is the value per fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could guess at that. And the resulting ROI on  the 2 million USD?

On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his history...& the man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But  *in addition* to that I see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove the speaker's respectability by way of contrast.  Include an open-minded paragraph on the value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for Russ George's work which has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote) The recent Newsweek article on GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If the guy (and the Haida of course) did an experiment and generated data, then that's interesting and will have consequences. It's not as if he was beheading hamsters  in bulk or something! (Oh wait, that's entirely respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the subject forward, even amid a storm of disapproval.

If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can deliver at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless of whether it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other reasons, that will pretty hard to stop.

Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce emissions and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage the latter, even if you are unaware of or hostile to it. And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?)  won't distract from emissions reduction because any carbon price capable of pushing CDR will have an even stronger impact on emissions.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.



--
Thanks,
Bill Stahl

M V Bhaskar

unread,
Dec 24, 2014, 6:11:56 AM12/24/14
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, rtuli...@yahoo.com.au, nua...@gmail.com
Bill

The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very low.
The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special ships used.

You wrote -
"And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?) "

Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.
So Iron Fertilization does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish can be caught and sold.

Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion tons 200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring fish back to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would be very profitable.

Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of the goal of increasing fish.

Regards

Bhaskar

Michael Hayes

unread,
Dec 24, 2014, 5:44:32 PM12/24/14
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Hi Folks,

The whole concept of the salmon population dramatically increasing due to a few days of extra feed is, on the face of it, simply ridiculous. Here in the Pacific Northwest there has been an ongoing multi decades effort at salmon recovery and the last few years we have seen the northward migration of warmer waters which has reach just offshore the Salish Sea. This warming of the offshore waters has increased the primary production in those waters and many of the Fraser River and Skagit River (my local river) salmon mature in the offshore waters outside the Salish Sea. On the Baker River alone, over $150M has been spent in less than 10 years, on one salmon recovery project alone and there are multiple international projects of the same caliber. Thus, the claim that the OIF effort miraculously multiplied the salmon population in here in the PNW is not credible....by a long shot.

Best,

Michael 

Bill Stahl

unread,
Dec 24, 2014, 8:46:48 PM12/24/14
to bhaska...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, rtuli...@yahoo.com.au, nua...@gmail.com
good point Bhaskar.
What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon price of some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF, mineral sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the fisheries OIF you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could be independent & profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR proponents who have a CDR process in desperate need of an economic rationale. (How much CO2 OIF actually does sequester is still unclear to me, other than it would vary with circumstances).

M V Bhaskar

unread,
Dec 25, 2014, 12:45:56 AM12/25/14
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com, nua...@gmail.com
Hi Michael

The contradiction in your statements are obvious -
If $ 150 million have been spent over past 10 years on one project and many such projects are being executed, why is there a sudden increase in this year's Salmon run, there ought to have been a steady increase over the past 10 years.

I am not saying that the entire increase in this year's Salmon run is due to the Haida Nation experiment, but the link should be studied and more such experiments should be conducted. 

Far too much effort is being wasted in criticism instead of moving forward with systematic scientific research. 

Regards

Bhaskar

Robert Tulip

unread,
Dec 26, 2014, 3:08:50 AM12/26/14
to bsta...@gmail.com, bhaska...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, nua...@gmail.com
Bill Stahl's perceptive observation that Ocean Iron Fertilization (ie algae production) could be independent and profitable as a carbon dioxide reduction technology points to the centrality of algae for climate stabilisation, as a way to mimic and industrialise natural processes to provide scalable and sustainable rapid ways to fix more carbon than we emit and drive down CO2 ppm levels.

OIF should be considered the starting point for scientific research programs to define objectives and massively boost algae yield through a range of spinoff technologies.  For example, containing the produced algae from OIF in the OMEGA membrane enclosures developed by NASA, and then concentrating this algae as a useful commodity, offers a path to global economic transformation, turning carbon dioxide from waste to resource.
 
Carbon taxes are merely an incidental distraction to this objective of carbon dioxide removal, which will stand or fall on the capacity of new technologies to compete against fossil fuels on purely market based economics without long term subsidy.  The role of governments is to provide seed funding for innovation, in recognition that global warming is a primary planetary security emergency. 

Robert Tulip


Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.



--
Thanks,
Bill Stahl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.



--
Thanks,
Bill Stahl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

vogle...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 26, 2014, 3:09:44 AM12/26/14
to bsta...@gmail.com, bhaska...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, rtuli...@yahoo.com.au, nua...@gmail.com
There is no one tech path. We must accept and use a synergistic compilation of mean/methods to achieve the ultimate goal of enviromental stability without confict while achieving economic growth at the lower wage end. Yes, profit production is key. And, we need to move forward on the broadest basic tech level we have at this time.

Working the marine microbibal loop is our best option for generating both profits and enviromental stability. We must, however, keep in view the multi level needs (profoundly important relationships) within the biotic world.

Obviosly, without motivation for financial profits, no global scale/coordinated mitigation effort will come about...without trans-boarder/generational/industrial sector conficts.

Thus, focusing upon the most basic biological life support aspect of life on this planet (the oceans)
and generating sustainable economical growth means and methods, within those regions, is our only hope for longterm survival.

We need a broad and deep field of marine options. Carbon pricing is a weak minded fools' tit.

Best regards, Michael

Sent with Verizon Mobile Email


---Original Message---
From: bsta...@gmail.com
Sent: 12/24/2014 5:46 pm
To: bhaska...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, rtuli...@yahoo.com.au, nua...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

good point Bhaskar. What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon price of some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF, mineral sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the fisheries OIF you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could be independent & profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR proponents who have a CDR process in desperate need of an economic rationale. (How much CO2 OIF actually does sequester is still unclear to me, other than it would vary with circumstances). On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar <bhaska...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill > > The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very > low. > The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special > ships used. > > You wrote - > "And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other > serious way?) " > > Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida > Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at > just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million. > So Iron Fertilization does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish > can be caught and sold. > > Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion > tons 200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring > fish back to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would > be very profitable. > > Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of > the goal of increasing fish. > > Regards > > Bhaskar > > On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote: >> >> A belated response: >> This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per >> Bhaskar) was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the >> results in the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the >> previous record (and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - >> what is the value per fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could >> guess at that. And the resulting ROI on the 2 million USD? >> >> On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his >> history...& the man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But *in >> addition* to that I see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove >> the speaker's respectability by way of contrast. Include an open-minded >> paragraph on the value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for >> Russ George's work which has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote) >> The recent Newsweek article on GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If >> the guy (and the Haida of course) did an experiment and generated data, >> then that's interesting and will have consequences. It's not as if he was >> beheading hamsters in bulk or something! (Oh wait, that's entirely >> respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the subject forward, even >> amid a storm of disapproval. >> >> If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can >> deliver at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless >> of whether it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other >> reasons, that will pretty hard to stop. >> >> Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce >> emissions and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage >> the latter, even if you are unaware of or hostile to it. And vice versa: >> pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?) >> won't distract from emissions reduction because any carbon price capable of >> pushing CDR will have an even stronger impact on emissions. >> >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, David Lewis <jrando...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm sorry to have written something anyone might take to be supportive >>> of what the ETC group has been doing in regard to geoengineering. >>> >>> However, whenever I think about Russ George, the fact that he once >>> claimed to be in the process of bringing to market a lab tested cold fusion >>> room heater does come into my mind. >>> >>> My grandfather was a salmon fisherman on the British Columbia coast. I >>> worked with him on his boat when I was a teenager. Hence my great interest >>> when I first heard about what the Haida had done. I supported the iron >>> fertilization project at the time. I was critical of ETC at the time. I'm >>> with those who say what is one application of 100 tonnes of iron compared >>> to the sewage that is dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, or >>> compared to the annual application of fertilizer to farms on land? I >>> support further research into fertilizing the ocean. I think most people >>> who fish the British Columbia coast will be very supportive of further >>> research. >>> >>> On Friday, December 5, 2014 11:59:16 AM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote: >>>> >>>> David Lewis commented on November 18 about Russ George and the Haida >>>> Salmon Ocean Iron Fertilization Project. David said >>>> >>>> "Just because a snake oil salesman happened to find out along with the >>>> rest of us that there are interesting indications that, for once, his >>>> bottles may actually have contained something efficacious doesn't mean his >>>> critics on this OIF project were "persecuting" him." >>>> >>>> >>>> It is not fair or correct to describe Russ George as a snake oil >>>> salesman, despite the problems that David describes in George's work dating >>>> from 1999 on another topic. >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>> topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Bill Stahl >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Thanks, Bill Stahl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

vogle...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 26, 2014, 6:26:16 AM12/26/14
to bhaska...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, nua...@gmail.com
M . V. and list,

The large increase in salmon can not be credited to a short term (days) bump in algal growth within a tiny fraction of the full range of the area(s) these salmon use...over their life cycle. There is simply no...no remotely plausible corrilation.

Also, increased (unconfined) nutrients could have just as easily kicked off viral/bacterial pathigens, hyper growth of parasites and or litorial benthic biotic crashes.

In extreamly brief words, all salmanoids require robust and ongoing supplies of feed (3-10+ years) before they mature and group inshore. They are solitatary animal that avoid schooling until their final dash to the rivers! Many of animals withhn this last run did not even come close to the oif site...in their life time! Also, the stock in question may easily have been fingerlings a decade ago...and... three years ago. All runs are a mix of species and ages. The OI F effort was neither robust enough nor contenious enough to have been a significant (positive) factor in the broad matrix of factors which make a run happen.

I'm confident that the increase is due to many other factors other than a dinky little short term algal bloom in an small issolated field.

Also, when litorialy sited OIF does trigger a die off (which is highly plausible), who will pay for it? (Think possible $30M+ fine/10+ years in jail for kiling endangered animals) OIF should be strictly limited to the STCZs and, even then, confined/controlled within tanks.

Why not maximize the benifits/resorces and limit the risk through using very simplistic/basic marine engineering means and methods? I'm not opposed to using the microbial loop in an highly controlled and regulated way.

After all, we exist largely due to that marine biological loop and the loop is a strong ce tool. Let's not screw the loop up nor give it mythical powers.

Michael
Sent with Verizon Mobile Email


---Original Message---
From: bhaska...@gmail.com
Sent: 12/26/2014 12:06 am
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: nua...@gmail.com
Subject: [geo] Re: GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

Hi Michael The contradiction in your statements are obvious - If $ 150 million have been spent over past 10 years on one project and many such projects are being executed, why is there a sudden increase in this year's Salmon run, there ought to have been a steady increase over the past 10 years. I am not saying that the entire increase in this year's Salmon run is due to the Haida Nation experiment, but the link should be studied and more such experiments should be conducted. Far too much effort is being wasted in criticism instead of moving forward with systematic scientific research. Regards Bhaskar On Thursday, 25 December 2014 04:14:32 UTC+5:30, Michael Hayes wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > The whole concept of the salmon population dramatically increasing due to > a few days of extra feed is, on the face of it, simply ridiculous. Here in > the Pacific Northwest there has been an ongoing multi decades effort at salmon > recovery <http://www.rco.wa.gov/%5C/salmon_recovery/efforts.shtml> and > the last few years we have seen the northward migration of warmer waters > which has reach just offshore the Salish Sea > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_Sea>. This warming of the offshore > waters has increased the primary production in those waters and many of the > Fraser River and Skagit River <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagit_River> > (my local river) salmon mature in the offshore waters outside the Salish > Sea. On the Baker River > <https://pse.com/aboutpse/Environment/Pages/Fish.aspx> alone, over $150M > has been spent in less than 10 years, on one salmon recovery project alone > and there are multiple international projects of the same caliber. Thus, > the claim that the OIF effort miraculously multiplied the salmon population > in here in the PNW is not credible....by a long shot. > > Best, > > Michael > > On Sunday, November 16, 2014 4:37:37 PM UTC-8, Bill Stahl wrote: >> >> To the extent that an increased salmon catch was due to OIF, the Haida >> experiment turns the usual CDR issue on its head. Instead of a CDR idea >> looking for any possible economic justification to bring it over the line >> into financial feasibility, this would be a financially feasible >> aquaculture technique with a potential add-on subsidy from carbon pricing. >> Has anyone compared what the Haida spent vs. what the salmon industry got >> out of it, to calculate a rough ROI? (Allowing for a range of estimates of >> how much was due to OIF*). I can easily imagine a bunch of fishermen in a >> Ketchikan bar swapping stories about what a great season they had because >> of the Haida project, then talking about subsidizing this money-maker with >> carbon credits. >> >> ‘Slippery slope’ arguments are usually used to warn against GE research >> (e.g. Hamilton’s ‘No, Let’s Not “Just Do The Research”) but there is a >> slippery slope in carbon pricing too. The carbon prices cited by >> environmental advocates as sufficient to change the energy system quickly >> would be far higher than those required to get many CDR schemes into >> action, including ones like OIF that are anathema to many of the most vocal >> supporters of carbon pricing. And if an OIFapproach can already make money >> unsubsidized for existing, and influential, economic interests then >> investment will flow to it. If you support a strong carbon price - and >> that’s the organizing principle of climate change advocacy across the board >> - you may already pulling an oar in this particular rowboat, even if >> you hate the idea. >> >> Which is OK by me. But perhaps the people who so annoy Tulip say the >> things they do because they figured this out too. >> >> Any suggestions of other fisheries that might be amenable to this >> approach? Clearly most species do not gather at as convenient a >> feeding-trough as a Haida Eddy, but surely there are some. >> >> *Of course how effective the Haida OIF was as CDR is a separate issue. >> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

vogle...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 26, 2014, 6:26:51 AM12/26/14
to rtuli...@yahoo.com.au, bsta...@gmail.com, bhaska...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, nua...@gmail.com
Robert,

. The foreward osmosis membrain is not robust enough for any use beyond whatTrent has indicated. Large scale off shore algal farms will need ridgid tanks.

To better unstand just how inept thin film is in the open ocean, simply take a thin plastic trash bag (it is equivalent to a f.o membrain) out to the surf and try using in the water.

Beyond the obvious mechanical factors; If you were an investor, with even a minor grasp of real world oceanic conditions, would you pick fragile film tubes or robust tanks to risk your money on?

Michael
Sent with Verizon Mobile Email


---Original Message---
From: rtuli...@yahoo.com.au
Sent: 12/26/2014 12:08 am
To: bsta...@gmail.com, bhaska...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, nua...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

Bill Stahl's perceptive observationthat Ocean Iron Fertilization (ie algae production) could be independent andprofitable as a carbon dioxide reduction technology points to the centrality ofalgae for climate stabilisation, as a way to mimic and industrialise naturalprocesses to provide scalable and sustainable rapid ways to fix more carbonthan we emit and drive down CO2 ppm levels. OIF should be consideredthe starting point for scientific research programs to define objectives andmassively boost algae yield through a range of spinoff technologies.  For example, containing the produced algae fromOIF in the OMEGA membrane enclosures developed by NASA, and then concentratingthis algae as a useful commodity, offers a path to global economictransformation, turning carbon dioxide from waste to resource.  Carbon taxes are merely anincidental distraction to this objective of carbon dioxide removal, which willstand or fall on the capacity of new technologies to compete against fossilfuels on purely market based economics without long term subsidy.  The role of governments is to provide seedfunding for innovation, in recognition that global warming is a primaryplanetary security emergency.  Robert Tulip From: Bill Stahl <bsta...@gmail.com> To: bhaska...@gmail.com Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com; jrando...@gmail.com; rtuli...@yahoo.com.au; nua...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, 25 December 2014, 4:08 Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme? good point Bhaskar. What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon price of some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF, mineral sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the fisheries OIF you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could be independent & profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR proponents who have a CDR process in desperate need of an economic rationale. (How much CO2 OIF actually does sequester is still unclear to me, other than it would vary with circumstances). On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar <bhaska...@gmail.com> wrote: Bill The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very low.The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special ships used. You wrote -"And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?) " Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.So Iron Fertilization does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish can be caught and sold. Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion tons 200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring fish back to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would be very profitable. Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of the goal of increasing fish. Regards Bhaskar On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote:  A belated response: This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per Bhaskar) was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the results in the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the previous record (and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - what is the value per fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could guess at that. And the resulting ROI on  the 2 million USD? On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his history...& the man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But  *in addition* to that I see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove the speaker's respectability by way of contrast.  Include an open-minded paragraph on the value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for Russ George's work which has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote) The recent Newsweek article on GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If the guy (and the Haida of course) did an experiment and generated data, then that's interesting and will have consequences. It's not as if he was beheading hamsters  in bulk or something! (Oh wait, that's entirely respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the subject forward, even amid a storm of disapproval. If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can deliver at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless of whether it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other reasons, that will pretty hard to stop. Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce emissions and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage the latter, even if you are unaware of or hostile to it. And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?)  won't distract from emissions reduction because any carbon price capable of pushing CDR will have an even stronger impact on emissions. On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, David Lewis <jrando...@gmail.com> wrote: I'm sorry to have written something anyone might take to be supportive of what the ETC group has been doing in regard to geoengineering.  However, whenever I think about Russ George, the fact that he once claimed to be in the process of bringing to market a lab tested cold fusion room heater does come into my mind.  My grandfather was a salmon fisherman on the British Columbia coast.  I worked with him on his boat when I was a teenager.  Hence my great interest when I first heard about what the Haida had done.  I supported the iron fertilization project at the time.  I was critical of ETC at the time.  I'm with those who say what is one application of 100 tonnes of iron compared to the sewage that is dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, or compared to the annual application of fertilizer to farms on land?  I support further research into fertilizing the ocean.  I think most people who fish the British Columbia coast will be very supportive of further research.  On Friday, December 5, 2014 11:59:16 AM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote: David Lewis commented on November 18 about RussGeorge and the Haida Salmon Ocean Iron Fertilization Project.  David said  "Just because a snake oilsalesman happened to find out along with the rest of us that there areinteresting indications that, for once, his bottles may actually have containedsomething efficacious doesn't mean his critics on this OIF project were"persecuting" him."  It is not fair or correct to describe Russ Georgeas a snake oil salesman, despite the problems that David describes in George'swork dating from 1999 on another topic. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Thanks, Bill Stahl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Thanks, Bill Stahl-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)

unread,
Dec 26, 2014, 10:31:26 AM12/26/14
to vogle...@gmail.com, rtuli...@yahoo.com.au, bsta...@gmail.com, bhaska...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, nua...@gmail.com
I would rely on neither, see attachment proposal nr.10, Olaf Schuiling
strategy.docx

Robert Tulip

unread,
Dec 26, 2014, 5:54:10 PM12/26/14
to vogle...@gmail.com, bsta...@gmail.com, bhaska...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, nua...@gmail.com
Forward Osmosis Membrane
 
Dear Michael & other readers
 
Response to comment from Michael Hayes that plastic bags are too flimsy for industrial production of algae at sea.
 
My discussion of the use of plastic bags to grow algae at sea is based on my cooperation with Mr Terry Spragg, another of those failed California entrepreneurs who had a great visionary idea that no one has ever funded.  Terry’s site www.waterbag.com describes his invention of a floating flexible barge using strong flexible plastic bags (not osmotic membranes) to tow fresh water from areas of abundance (eg Pacific Northwest USA, North Queensland, Turkey) to areas of shortage (eg California, Southeast Australia, Gaza).  His 1996 waterbag demonstration voyage in Puget Sound failed due to quality control on stitching, not weak materials.
 
As Steven Johnson explains in his wonderful book Where Good Ideas Come From – The Natural History of Innovation, inventors often need to make mistakes and fail before they can succeed with a radically innovative new technology that opens up undreamt of realms of the adjacent possible.  That is the evolving situation for marine algae production.  Safe controlled scientific experiments are needed to test what can work.  Unfortunately there is an intense and pervasive political hostility towards innovation which results in market failure to provide the necessary venture capital or even discuss the ideas properly in any public forum.
 
At sea, a plastic bag full of fresh water will float, becoming part of the ocean wave.  Such a bag can easily be made strong enough to survive safely in an ocean swell.  My suggestion is to use plastic waterbags as containers for algae farms at sea, with the surrounding waterbag providing buoyancy, stability and pumping energy.  In bad weather the whole system can be temporarily sunk beneath the waves.  A great test location would be Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, where algae farms can provide insurance against global warming by reducing water heat, acid and nutrient load, protecting the coral against the high risk of bleaching and preventing the impending catastrophic loss of reef biodiversity.
 
Osmosis is only required to dewater the algae once a bloom is mature, not during the growth phase.  My opinion is that dewatering would best be done using vertical pipes to the deep ocean floor, where high pressure and temperature can be applied to convert the algae into hydrocarbons and other profitable commodities.  This method could be tested with some the million tonnes of carbon that the Gorgon Gas Project plans to sequester each year, converting the waste CO2 into valuable hydrocarbons and other commodities, providing the revenue stream for scalable CO2 removal from air and sea.
 
Robert Tulip


Sent: Friday, 26 December 2014, 22:01
Subject: RE: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

vogle...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 27, 2014, 6:30:33 AM12/27/14
to Robert Tulip, bsta...@gmail.com, bhaska...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, jrando...@gmail.com, nua...@gmail.com, R.D.Sc...@uu.nl
Robert et al,

I support any robust containment means including dracon barges, shoreline inpound tanks (per Olaf) and submerged offshore tank farms etc..

Using olivine shoreline impound tanks for first/primary stage biotic conversion and transfering that organic/olivine output to vast scale offshore farms (via dracons, pipelines, self propelled tanks etc. ), in support of a broad spectrum cultivation, refinement and manufacturing consortium of responsable offshore actors, provides us with a well rounded general opperational and governance protocal.

The volume acheivable would ecclipes oif and the biomass/olivine value would be maximized while avoiding a number of strategic risks.

If asked which means of offshore containment I recommend, that would be tanks with... durable... bags in support. Both can be made from algal crude oil and or other in house products which will make way for low cost tanks/bags/structual support members.

This approach of linking marine biotic/mineral utilization means and methods, in a cooperative business frame work, offers a robust mitigation, governance and profit path.

The lower level tech details will be up to the investor's best judgement as there are a number of options. We need to field test the full spectrum of options and analyze the synergistic links and then rapidly move to expand the deployment of the optimal techs.

All of the primary cultivation concepts we have touched upon have value, yet we are not the investors and thus we should remain open to what tech path the funders wish.
We face a funding issue more than a tech challange.

Michael
Sent with Verizon Mobile Email

Subject: Forward Osmosis Membrane

ForwardOsmosis Membrane   DearMichael & other readers   Responseto comment from Michael Hayes that plastic bags are too flimsy for industrialproduction of algae at sea.   Mydiscussion of the use of plastic bags to grow algae at sea is based on mycooperation with Mr Terry Spragg, another of those failed Californiaentrepreneurs who had a great visionary idea that no one has ever funded.  Terry’s site www.waterbag.comdescribes his invention of a floating flexible barge using strong flexible plasticbags (not osmotic membranes) to tow fresh water from areas of abundance (egPacific Northwest USA, North Queensland, Turkey) to areas of shortage (egCalifornia, Southeast Australia, Gaza). His 1996 waterbag demonstrationvoyage in Puget Sound failed due to quality control on stitching, not weakmaterials.   As StevenJohnson explains in his wonderful book WhereGood Ideas Come From – The Natural History of Innovation, inventors often needto make mistakes and fail before they can succeed with a radically innovativenew technology that opens up undreamt of realms of the adjacent possible.  That is the evolving situation for marinealgae production.  Safe controlled scientificexperiments are needed to test what can work. Unfortunately there is an intense and pervasive political hostilitytowards innovation which results in market failure to provide the necessaryventure capital or even discuss the ideas properly in any public forum.   At sea, aplastic bag full of fresh water will float, becoming part of the oceanwave.  Such a bag can easily be made strongenough to survive safely in an ocean swell. My suggestion is to use plastic waterbags as containers for algae farmsat sea, with the surrounding waterbag providing buoyancy, stability and pumpingenergy.  In bad weather the whole systemcan be temporarily sunk beneath the waves. A great test location would be Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, wherealgae farms can provide insurance against global warming by reducing waterheat, acid and nutrient load, protecting the coral against the highrisk of bleaching and preventing the impending catastrophic loss of reefbiodiversity.   Osmosisis only required to dewater the algae once a bloom is mature, not during thegrowth phase.  My opinion is that dewateringwould best be done using vertical pipes to the deep ocean floor, where highpressure and temperature can be applied to convert the algae into hydrocarbonsand other profitable commodities.  This methodcould be tested with some the million tonnes of carbon that the Gorgon GasProject plans to sequester each year, converting the waste CO2 into valuablehydrocarbons and other commodities, providing the revenue stream for scalableCO2 removal from air and sea.   RobertTulip From: "vogle...@gmail.com" <vogle...@gmail.com> To: rtuli...@yahoo.com.au; bsta...@gmail.com;bhaska...@gmail.com  Cc: geoengi...@googlegroups.com; jrando...@gmail.com;nua...@gmail.com  Sent: Friday, 26 December 2014, 22:01 Subject: RE: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in theNorthwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme? Robert, . The foreward osmosis membrain is not robust enough for any use beyondwhatTrent has indicated. Large scale off shore algal farms will need ridgidtanks. 

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages