USG Leadership on MBECS Developement/Demand and Within International Treaties by Marine BECCS

[CC] "1) We would like to challenge the author to improve the accuracy of and better clarify the role that the US would play in international governance of an energy industry innovation such as this. Why is U.S. government action necessary and what opposition do actors in the U.S. have to overcome to act?". [MH 1] The 'Long View' Necessity of USG Leadership on Governance: The first point of fact which is important to keep in mind is that the international governance issue is clear on the point that mariculture is an existing and legitimate large scale industry which is currently in no need of high level treaty modifications. In short, there are no currently pressing international governance issues on the IMBECS Protocol table...for now. However, the potential for a free-for-all, destructive and disjointed exploitation of the oceanic deserts is plausible without a focused development of cogent cooperation between all actors using MBECS technology within the oceanic commons. Early prevention of abuse is far more cost effective than mitigation, for all concerned. Although mariculture is currently a large/global industry, the scale, marine resource management and production standardization that the IMBECS Protocol proposal is attempting to establish can be viewed as a 'new-ish' global industry which has the benefit of possibly being able to achieve an international level of cooperative governance before large scale invested interests are established. International standards for vast scale marine biomass cultivation can be and should be established as soon as possible and done so through the use of existing treaty language and intent concerning the protection of the oceanic environment. All parties can afford to take the 'Long View' on environmental mitigation priorities and practices if they currently are not dependent on existing profits from established 'business as usual' priorities and practices. [MH 2] The Strategic Intergovernmental Necessity of USGs Governance Leadership for an IMBECS Protocol Initiative: In the debate concerning intergovernmental governance of global warming mitigation efforts, the issue of authority or 'lagitimacy' is paramount and the USG does offer the highest level of STEM 'legitimacy' within the CoP. Ignoring the recommendations of the IPCCC WG3 (mitigation), concerning the appropriateness of terrestrial bio-energy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS), would be ethically contrary to the general efforts of the USG in maintaining 'legitimate' leadership at the CoP level. Marine based BECCS (i.e. MBECS) offers a path for the USG to follow the current WG3 recommendation, concerning the value of mitigating global warming through terrestrial BECCS, while avoiding many of the STEM and economic limiting factors currently recognized within terrestrial BECCS. [MH] 3] Initiating Actions: The action(s) which the USG can apply, to empirically move forward on an IMBECS like protocol, are within the existing authority of the administration. Congressional approval for funding of an MBECS like 'research instillation' (i.e. commercial class MBECS prototype work), is extant through multiple grant, loan and fuel purchase programs related to: Energy Security through Renewable Energy Development Climate Change Mitigation Scientific Investigation Economic Expansion Food/Water Security Further, and most importantly, the approval of the IRS 501 (c) (3) division, in approving the 'mission statement' of the proposed IMBECS Foundation, is a high priority as the mission statement is the core guidance for all (US) advocates/actors. The key legal issue will be the definition of the term 'unrelated business income' (“UBI” pg. 81). The phrase of 'unrelated business' is largely defined by IRS approval of the scope (i.e. business model) crafted within the mission statement. With Administration level support for both the mission statement and inter-agency attention to the start-up level organizational legal/structural necessities of an IMBECS like initiative, the initiating organizational actions can be accomplished within a few weeks/months. [MH 4] Opposition Management: 4.1) Intellectual Property Management: Most of the major FF players (and other actors) have already invested significant sums of R&D capital within the 'biomass' field and have yet to develop the scale of production needed for biofuels to be truly competitive beyond regional FF markets. The IMBECS paradigm would be a market for all related intellectual property as the MBECS production means and methods opens up vast (global scale) and environmentally sustainable levels of biomass production. And, as extreme efficiencies, along with scale, are required for profitable biomass operations, electing to pool together the related IP, within an internationally focused non-profit franchise structure (i.e. IMBECS Foundation), provides the IP owners with the largest royalty level profit potential. In short, small slices of large scale pies are preferable to large slices of non-existent/small pies. 4.2) Trading Carbon Negative Biofuel for FFs; The FF Reserve Owners Advantage: Trading MBECS generated carbon negative biofuel for 'in situ' FF reserves, at a profitable level to the FF reserve owners, does reduce expected 'opposition' from reserve owners as few owners have a fundamental level interest between utilizing biofuel or FFs so long as profits and dependability/predictability of supplies are of equivalent value to the reserve owner. Beyond using the ownership of the physical FF reserve for 'un-conventional business' objectives, most strictly profit oriented and directed reserve owners have no intrinsic interest between biofuel and FFs. If all 'profit/supply issues' are equal, why should they? [CC2] "2) We also felt we lacked the context of feasibility or data to back up its impact on emissions reductions. It would also help to narrow the steps that need to be taken to specific actions that the federal government/federal agencies will need to take to facilitate MBECS ". [MH 5] Feasibility and Emissions Reduction: 5.1) The core marine engineering technology: The use of large scale offshore floating tank farms dates back to the 1970s primarily in relationship with Middle Eastern offshore petroleum crude storage/tanker loading facilities. The basic MBECS floating tank farm concept/technology is currently available to any actor. Additional marine technology will be incorporated and, when appropriate, new technology will be developed/acquired and deployed based upon the potential contribution of the new technology to the mission. 5.2) The core algal cultivation technology: The current algal biofuel production output averages can be extrapolated for large diameter (5') IMBECS bio-reactors (tanks). The majority of algal cultivation efforts will be within current industry standards. However, exploration of alternative cultivation means and methods, such as 'Dark Cultivation' (i.e. REDUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE COUPLED WITH THE OXYHYDROGEN REACTION IN ALGAE) will be of contentious interest to the IMBECS Foundation. 5.3) The emissions reduction factor: A number of peer reviewed papers are available on this issue. A prominent paper is: "Pilot-scale data provide enhanced estimates of the life cycle energy and emissions profile of algae biofuels produced via hydrothermal liquefaction." Liu X1, Saydah B, Eranki P, Colosi LM, Greg Mitchell B, Rhodes J, Clarens AF. Abstract Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used widely to estimate the environmental implications of deploying algae-to-energy systems even though no full-scale facilities have yet to be built. Here, data from a pilot-scale facility using hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) is used to estimate the life cycle profiles at full scale. Three scenarios (lab-, pilot-, and full-scale) were defined to understand how development in the industry could impact its life cycle burdens. HTL-derived algae fuels were found to have lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than petroleum fuels. Algae-derived gasoline had significantly lower GHG emissions than corn ethanol. Most algae-based fuels have an energy return on investment between 1 and 3, which is lower than petroleum biofuels. Sensitivity analyses reveal several areas in which improvements by algae bioenergy companies (e.g., biocrude yields, nutrient recycle) and by supporting industries (e.g., CO2 supply chains) could reduce the burdens of the industry. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The MBECS biofuel emissions reduction would be in-line with the above observations. CC 3) We'd also like to see a better attempt at identifying funding. An R&D need of $750 million is untenable for all but the most popular ideas, especially in a time of constrained budgets. [MH 6] The primary objective of the early stage empirical development is providing proof of concept concerning large scale tank farm fabrication, deployment and operations within real world conditions (without on board bio-crude refinement and only basic cultivation). This can be achieved through the use of a relatively small (0.50 km2) IMBECS offshore platform. In brief, that scale of proof of concept can be attained within a $30M budget. The commercial level operation would be far cheaper as there will be no 'development related expenditures'. The capital investment return goal of the MBECS proposal is to provide a 7 yr. amortization schedule.

My ability to edit has been deleted. This is 8/20 and there should be more time available.

Ocean Forestry Research Opportunities Ocean Foresters, December 2012 None of the research opportunities mentioned below are their own islands. Everything is relative to everything else. The questions apply to the whole ecosystem. For example, the nutrient recycling has to grow an ocean forest that can be harvested and processed in order to return nutrients for more forest growth. Ocean Forestry is explained by Dr. Antoine N’Yeurt in “Negative Carbon via Ocean Afforestation” available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001206. Also available at with supplemental information at the bottom of http://oceanforesters.org/Ocean_Forests.html. Ecosystem research opportunities What are the interconnections and interrelationships of all the questions below? Can we map all the possible large-scale OCEAN FORESTRY locations with overlays of complementary and competing interests for the marine resources (transportation, hunting-gathering, oil mining, etc) Legal and Global Policy research opportunities The OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystem can be an active marine sanctuary where solar energy powers the recycling of seaweed growing nutrients. The growing seaweed counteracts ocean acidification by pulling CO2 out of the ocean rapidly. The tiny shell creatures in passive marine sanctuaries are already dissolving and are doomed to extinction. Their death means the slow death (this century) of passive marine sanctuaries without some form of intervention. (We could confirm the locally lower pH by studying the Sargasso Sea.) Might OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystems be protected as active marine sanctuaries where the agencies operating the active sanctuary manage the fishing, farming, and forestry rights? How else to manage food production from the OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystem for millennia? Is this best done with transferrable quotas? Do OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystems in the active marine sanctuary role need liability insurance or protection from thieves? Suppose thousands of tons of seaweed and trapped fish wash up on an island beach. Should the OCEAN FORESTRY operator compensate the island tourism industry? Or does the island beneficially salvage the “escaped” OCEAN FORESTRY products with or without compensating the OCEAN FORESTRY? Microbial research opportunities related to anaerobic digestion How do the rate and completeness of ocean anaerobic bacterial digestion on seaweed at ocean conditions differ from the terrestrial situation? Are the Migliore results for digesting seaweed in higher-salinity-than-ocean water universal? (Migliore G., Alisi C., Sprocati A.R., Massi E., Ciccoli R., Lenzi M., Wang A., Cremisini C., (2012) 'Anaerobic digestion of macroalgal biomass and sediments sourced from the Orbetello Lagoon, Italy', Biomass and Bioenergy 42 69-77) Are there “ideal” temperatures for ocean anaerobic digestion just as there are ideal temperatures for terrestrial anaerobic digestion? Are ocean bacteria applying different principles of molecule movement than freshwater 1-atm bacteria for anaerobic digestion? Existing research at 1-atm with freshwater suggests that higher concentrations of dissolved gas products reduce the rate of gas production. Perhaps a higher dissolved gas concentration leaves the gas molecules lingering on the cell wall longer? That is, the final rate-limiting step is the conversion of dissolved gas to gas. Vigorous agitation and lower pressure (a partial vacuum) result in a 600% increase in the reaction rate. (Finhey and Evans, Anaerobic Digestion-the Rate Limiting Process and the Nature of Inhibition, Science, 1975) Ocean pressures allow us to easily operate in a situation where the CH4 is at dissolution equilibrium, but the CO2, H2S, and perhaps others are at far higher than 1-atm concentrations while still far less than equilibrium concentrations. (Trost, US Patent 5,651,890, July 29, 1997). If the transfer of CH4 from dissolved to gas is rate limiting, will a gas stripping molecule speed the rate of CH4 production? Trost, US Patent 5,681,890, 1997, found that the introduction of liquid propane into 1-atm, freshwater anaerobic digestion in amounts of 6 to 15% by volume of the biogas increases the biogas production rate substantially. This research was limited to the 1-atm situation where the propane initially flashes to a gas and is then dissolved from the gas bubbles. Propane and other “gases” and materials may offer more insights into molecule movement across the cell wall when the material is dissolved directly from its liquid or solid state because of the higher pressure. Will relatively higher concentrations of dissolved bioCO2 cause the more dissolved bioCO2 to be converted to bioCH4? That is, will the microbes produce relatively more bioCH4 and less bioCO2 under ocean conditions? Seawater offers a substantial buffer to the lowering pH effects of increased dissolved CO2. However, ocean bacteria may have evolved conversion to CH4 as a defense against increased dissolved CO2 concentrations. How does the DNA of the ocean bacteria associated with anaerobic digestion differ from the DNA of fresh water, relatively low pressure bacteria? Fish in seawater excrete calcium carbonate pellets. Fish in fresh water do not produce calcium carbonate pellets. (Wilson et al. 2009, Contribution of Fish to the Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle, Science) Are the bacteria in saltwater fish intestines producing dissolved CO2 and CH4? Is the dissolved bioCO2 essential to calcium carbonate production? What are the plant nutrients remaining after the gas production, after the anaerobic digestion is completed, and how might they support expanded seaweed growth? Hydrothermal processing research and development opportunities Can hydrothermal conversion be accomplished more economically with the “free” pressure of the deep ocean? (Place the equipment about 2,000 meters deep.) Macroalgae (seaweed) research opportunities How are the nutrients recycled to foster growth of macroalgae and inhibit growth of microalgae? What blend of algae makes the best ocean forest? (The best forest has the most sustainable blend of biodiversity, energy, food, and greenhouse gas reduction. It may differ depending on location, time of year, or multi-year cyclic event such as the Indian Ocean Dipole.) What algae harvesting techniques and equipment contribute to the desired ocean forest with the least energy and capital cost? (Or the best use of dissolved gas, wind, wave, solar, current, geothermal, etc. renewable energy.) Reducing the water content of the harvest may allow for smaller anaerobic digestion containers. During daylight, the water around the algae can have very high dissolved O2. The dissolved O2 is helpful for aerobic bacteria to convert the recycled ammonia to nitrate. However, dissolved O2 and nitrate must be reduced without losing significant carbon before the mass of water and algae is introduced to the anaerobic digestion container. Should the digestate be treated in a physical (or virtual) container in order to convert ammonia to nitrate before the digestate is diluted back to the ocean surface? Is any NO, N2O, or NO2 produced during the OCEAN FORESTRY nutrient recycle. If so, is there an NH4 distribution arrangement which minimizes 'bad' nitrogen while quickly converting NH4 to NO3? What nutrients added to improve the anaerobic digestion process will also improve the growth of macroalgae, or the health of the fish feeding on the macroalgae, or the health of the predators on herbivores? For example we may add iron to the anaerobic digestion in order to intercept the sulfur from preferentially bonding with the hydrogen. Iron is often a lacking micronutrient for an algae forest. If the iron is capturing sulfur, will sulfur and iron concentrations increase or decrease primary productivity and biodiversity? What techniques and equipment are necessary to survive extreme weather such as tropical storms (cyclones, typhoons, hurricanes), unusual cold, or unusual hot? Is there a minimum or maximum size algal forest for optimal overall ocean health? Can we remove bioaccumulating toxics with some aquatic plant species without losing nutrients? How and why might algal forests in one ocean differ from those in another ocean? Do the different species have some of the same genes? Figure 1 – Pressure-Temperature relationship for CO2 in excess of dissolve equilibrium How do partial pressures influence the form of CO2 which is in excess of dissolution equilibrium in an anaerobic digester? Sealife and economics research opportunities Other than with Ocean Forestry, how can humanity ensure sustainable food, energy, biodiversity, while avoiding ocean acidification? Which sealife species complement the quadruple outputs? What species can be harvested while increasing biodiversity? What proportion of herbivores and predators evolves? What size should they be harvested for the best long-term ecosystem sustainability? Seeing that organisms rarely if ever stand alone, but are usually integral parts of an interwoven community, what is an appropriate target community for each oceanic region? Can we replicate or transplant already existing communities that have rich process path linking? How can we match the fish harvesting for long-term sustainability with the commercial value of each species? Is long-term biodiversity improved or harmed by occasional ecosystem “crashes?” The terrestrial analogy might be forest fires, bark beetles, or an excess of deer. In the ocean, the crash might be ocean acidification, or a pod of dolphins eat all the herbivores, or a toxic algal bloom, or a large storm sweeps the macroalgae onto a beach. Can we remove bioaccumulating toxics from the Ocean Forestry ecosystem without losing crucial quantities and types of nutrients? (Toxics: mercury from coal burning, plastic trash particles, etc.) Is there a minimum or maximum size algal forest and associated fish harvest for optimal overall ocean health? If some macro algae are diverted (outside the OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystem) to chemical and feed production, say through bio-refineries, how does this impact: biodiversity; economics; primary productivity; etc. Ocean Geophysicist research opportunities Is there more or less water evaporation from large open-ocean macroalgal forests? Higher or lower water temperatures relative to areas which remain nutrient deserts? Do large seaweed forests induce changes in ocean vertical mixing or ocean currents on either the local or the global scale? If there are changes, are those changes reinforcing or counteracting the changes induced by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases? Do large macroalgal forests induce local or global changes in atmospheric pressure and wind patterns? Are there changes in storm frequency, intensity, or waves? If so, are the changes reinforcing or counteracting the changes induced by increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases? Do algal forests induce micro climate effects, which are common with regular forests on land? And if so, what are these effects likely to be? (Note that large terrestrial rainforests such as the Amazon create their own rainy climate with rapid evaporation and precipitation for quick water cycling.) If Ocean Forestry is undertaken in open-ocean currents, are these currents spatially stable or predictable enough to enable efficient harvesting down-current? How far off track will afforested macroalgae be driven by storms, and will this allow efficient harvesting? How will increased greenhouse gas concentrations change the velocity of ocean currents? Can these changes be predicted to guide Forestry and harvesting? Ocean current monitoring via up-looking Doppler sonar has become commonplace as have autonomous transmitting floats and vehicles. To what extent should those employing the data (fishing fleets, OCEAN FORESTRY operators, navies) contribute to the installation and operation of data gathering? Undersea robotics research opportunities Remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) have seen extensive development in recent decades, thanks to funding from the offshore oil & gas industry. However they remain focused mainly on data gathering and light repairs. Can AUV’s be enhanced to perform complex heavy ocean forestry and carbon storage operations at -1,000 meter and -3,000 meter depths? How can we extend AUV power to obtain maximum deep water operating times? Improved batteries? Liquid-to-gas CO2 expansion? Fuel cells running on stored methane and oxygen or scavenging dissolved oxygen? Mini-geothermal power plants on hot seafloor vents? Microbial fuel cells generating energy from marine snow? Inertial navigation has become cheaper and more available, but it suffers from exponential Markov drift in all 3 dimensions. What navigation recalibrating systems might be deployed for in support of deep water projects? Other – Please share any issues you foresee which need to be addressed before Ocean Forestry could be scaled-up to have climatically-significant effects with the Ocean Foresters.

Work on an updated version on the proposal is being undertaken and the document can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/10qLw-E9wK5FLEr4O4OhTMStX1zl-u8d_rSTyzg2-IfM/edit The title is "USG; Lead the way to Marine Bio-Energy and Carbon Sequestration (MBECS) --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Government Agencies can drive the U.S. to the lead in global energy independence, climate change, mitigation and green job creation via MBECS. The Ocean Forester's suggestions are still being integrated into the document yet I'm trying to also insure and maintain focus upon the core MBECS logic. Also, the IMBECS Protocol has been submitted to the U.N. Green Climate Fund Secretariat for consideration within the Fund's initial financial framework. If the Green Climate Fund adopts an IMBECS Protocol like collaborative approach, that would be the base for a global scale GW mitigation effort (as I've hoped and worked for).

Thank you. The time and thought the judges/fellows put into the questions, concerning the original post, significantly helped in focusing the work. I did spend a good deal of time running down each and every agency level program in an attempt to lay down a highly detailed road map. Then, clarity erupted. From my time working in the USG, I'm well aware that anything which is even remotely considered 'new' will require the approval of 'higher ups'. Thus, building a path from the bottom up is a non-starter within the USG. We must view the USG matrix from the top down. From that lofty view point, the path for new and significant climate change mitigation methods becomes clear. And, the Executive Branch has, in fact, built a framework which can be activated when 'new' mitigation technologies emerge. This approach is not well described within the posted Team Marine BECCS entry. Thus, I'm shifting much of my further work on the USG issue over to the document titled: Response to the MIT Climate CoLab Questions/Comments https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acQkkyOKrbovpYr2lcArbCSNKl1rFDA0GgSG_MJayXU/edit From that 'working' document, information/ideas will be transferred to the original IMBECS Protocol Draft document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit I again extend my deepest thanks to judges/fellows and the Climate CoLab team. Michael

Hello Hemant, Yes, large scale offshore biomass (fertilizer) cultivation and freshwater production operations can support large scale onshore agronomy efforts even within desert environments (please see the Sahara Forest Project at http://saharaforestproject.com/ ). Fruit tree propagation, as you have described, would be well within the overall focus of a global scale Marine based Bio-energy and Carbon Sequestration initiative. Organic fertilizer offers a great method for C sequestration!!! The potential of all nations using, in a sustainable way, the vast resources of the oceans needs to be put on a fast track within all nations and all relevant international treaty organizations. Hemant, thank you for pointing out the land based connection. I hope the marine derived organic fertilizer and fresh water potential of the IMBECS Protocol can find a home within your work. Best regards, Michael

Hi Marine BECCS, Please consider voting for my proposal, https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300801/planId/1309001 Good luck with your entry! Asante/Thank-you @conserveaction