Olaf, Poppe, Parminder, Andrew et al, *Olaf and Poppe*, thank you for the link to the well done and informative poster. As someone with a bio-centric view, I'm especially impressed with the lugworm connection. I am, however, somewhat concerned that:
1) the open water (un-contained) fertilization of the oceans, by any means, opens the concern of unintended propagation/evolution of bacterial/viral pathogens 2) the potential of throwing the predator/pray factor off balance 3) in shallow waters, triggering benthic bio-crashes (i.e. dead zones) 4) the economic/societal/environmental and political value of the biomass produced by open water fertilization is largely lost in exchange for nothing more than....carbon credits....for a few operators. The wide spectrum of critically important down stream commodities, such as food, feed, fuel etc., are important to our collective survival (the replacement of FFs by Bio-Energy, in of itself, may be our only hope of finding true economic, environmental and political stability). 5) the loss of the marine biomass for use in such important negative emissions scenarios/applications such as biochar with algal crude oil, to the short sighted open ocean fertilization type of CO2 sequestration scenario, would seem to be almost un-thinkable as we are in desperate need for negative emission fuels (which the combination of biochar and algal crude oil represents). These are also the same concerns which have been registered concerning OIF. The Schuiling/de Boer et. al. shoreline olivine/diatom installation design does begin to address the above concerns. Yet, as I've tried to highlight in earlier posts, the regulatory burden for shoreline work is oppressive in most developed countries. Also, many nations which could greatly benefit from, and would highly welcome, low cost bio-fuel, food, feed, fertilizer etc. *simply do not have shorelines*. This would seemingly make such land-locked nations strictly consumers and not primary producers. That un-equal production/trade scenario has little inherent political stability (i.e. 'Have v. Have Nots <http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Haves_and_the_Have_Nots.html?id=s8PnY-TiYGoC> '). I view the above 5 points of logic as possibly demonstrating how *'penny-wise and pound-foolish' **and* *un-equitable* it is to not fully use the full economic and climate change mitigation potential of the oceanic offshore commons for our primary biomass related environmental resources management *and* our political, societal, moral and ethical needs. This view is supportable by many objective measures. However, the logic that states that; Providing an offshore (in the global commons) technological equivalent to the Schuiling/de Boer et. al. shoreline installation (e.g. full spectrum production/refinement of bio-fuel, food, feed, fertilizer etc.), provides the greatest equality of primary production access for all nations, as well as, the fullest economic and environmental utility of the valuable oceanic produced biomass. In brief, I fail to see *why* the Schuiling/de Boer et. al. shoreline installation design concept *should not be translated* to the ocean commons. Poppe, your and Olaf's logic for *not extending* the olivine/diatom (i.e. full biomass utilization through confinement) into the oceanic commons is important for me to understand. I see little downside and vast upside in the full scale and full spectrum use of the* offshore biomass farming potential*...using containment means...*not unlike your shoreline concept*. In brief, I'm asking a basic question of; If olivine/diatom (i.e. full use of the mineral and biomass as opposed to simply sequestering the biomass at the benthic level) is logical for shorelines, why is it not for the deep blue? I fail to see the distinction beyond a possible aversion to what is a relatively minor transport cost differential factor. *Parminder:* I agree that the use of direct pH adjustment is needed at the deep ocean level and *deep injection* of minerals, such as olivine and/or the output from Greg Rau's AWL <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4dTSYGhZ8XnWFVsa2N5MWdITmc/view?usp=sharing>, should be a high priority (especially in distressed oceanic regions such as the South China Sea, the Sea of Japan, up-welling regions of the Antarctic Sea...just to name a few areas). *Andrew: *I appreciate the logic of using the natural agitation forces of high turbibity flows to sidestep the cost of mechanically milling of the olivine and directly using olivine as a fertilizer in those regions. However, as I have attempted to illuminate in the above 5 points, such seemingly* 'penny-wise and pound-foolish'* logic shorts the environment, society and, in the medium to long run, the investors/nations. Clearly, mining and milling of olivine is an important underlying necessity for vast scale oceanic biomass production. The industry created by that need can be vast in of itself. We can now see an analogy of such a basic need, within the fracking industry <http://www.npr.org/2011/08/03/138710389/gas-extraction-creates-a-boom-for-sand>, generating large levels of profits. And, the Schuiling/de Boer et. al. poster, present in this thread, also indicates that there will be vast scale work at the mineral mining/handling/milling/transport levels. Yet, at the bulk milling stage, the cost of creating wave driven milling operations (possibly using modified Salter Ducks for both milling and wave energy deflection/conversion) in not overly objectionable at either the profit level nor the technical level. In fact, we may see the fracking industry's sand management practices spawn a regulatory necessity to take the olivine milling offshore <http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/29/175042708/Sand-From-Fracking-Operations-Poses-Silicosis-Risk> for public/industrial health reasons. In brief, in this thread, it seems as through we are all talking and listening around the same set of questions and answers. Yet, our differences are that we may simply be speaking and listening from different perspectives on those questions and answers. My perspective is from my deep water work experiences and thus a perspective of being as self sufficient as possible in that environment. If provided with the proper level of funding, mid-oceanic operations would have....little.....need for terrestrial resources. This view of an ocean based and highly synergistic global scale resource management scenario is not unique to me. If the Shizimizu <http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/pdf/greenfloat_e.pdf> concept were to be outfitted with an ability to mine the mid-oceanic ridge for olivine (and other minerals) and have a greater focus upon vast scale biomass farming, refinement and manufacturing, as well as, a strong support for international cooperative governance concerning the profound need for environmental protection and negative emission fuel production, which is the focus of the IMBECS Protocol Draft <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit>, the Shizimizu concept would change our world on many important levels and do so within one generation. I have a strong belief that such a self sufficient oceanic civilization, which these concepts represent, is an environmental, social and political evolutionary inevitability and a species survival necessity. Best regards, Michael On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 3:49:01 AM UTC-8, Poppe de Boer wrote: > > Dear Michael, > This poster (AGU 2013) may be an answer to your remark. > Best regards, > Poppe > > Op donderdag 15 januari 2015 11:25:24 UTC+1 schreef andrewjlockley: >> >> Has anyone looked at dumping olivine into turbidity flows, rather than >> using beach wave action for grinding? >> >> As this could be done in the open ocean, it would avoid shoreline >> regulations. >> >> It could also be used to adjust pH at depth, which is otherwise a >> significant problem. >> >> A >> On 15 Jan 2015 09:55, "Michael Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dr. Schuiling et al, >>> >>> Your work does offer an elegant summation of a logic which few can >>> dispute, especially someone as scientifically ill equipped as myself. The >>> use of olivine opens up a number of far more complex climate change >>> mitigation and adaptation scenarios than what you propose and there is a >>> need to more often give credit to the importance of this mineral and your >>> work with it. I for one, intend to better highlight the importance of >>> olivine within my own work on the IMBECS Protocol. >>> >>> I realize you see little value in spending time on promoting vast scale >>> oceanic farming as depicted in the IMBECS Draft. However, here in the US >>> the use of littoral waters for shore line operations, such as you have >>> rightfully proposed, face massive regulatory restrictions and limitations >>> (even for temporary scientific investigations). Thus, the deployment of a >>> large scale network of olivine/diatom shoreline operations in this country >>> is not practical. This type of extreme regulatory burden is one of the >>> critical reasons why I'm working on an offshore version of your >>> olivine/diatom concept. >>> >>> Thank you for allowing us to read your draft. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:09:23 AM UTC-8, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have written down some of my thoughts on “natural” geoengineering. >>>> I haven’t published it, but would appreciate comments, Olaf Schuiling >>>> >>> -- >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> 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 the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
