Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
THE INTERNATIONAL, INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIETY DEVOTED TO OCEAN AND MARINE ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND POLICY VOLUME 41, NUMBER 3, FALL 2007 Volume 41, Number 3, Fall 2007 Societal Benefits of Marine Technology and the Challenges of Tomorrow Guest Editor: Karen Kohanowich In This Issue COVER IMAGES: Front Cover Insets: Top: Drugs from the sea are one potential biotechnology product. The sponge Stylissa massa produces an unusual compound, palau-amine, with antimicrobial activity. Image courtesy of Cayman Islands Twilight Zone 2007 Exploration, Marc Slattery, NOAA-OE. Left: A beaker full of 57-day-old Atlantic cod, with an average weight 0.3 grams. The fish are cultured at Great Bay Aquaculture in Portsmouth, NH. http:// ooa.unh.edu/photo/index.html. Right: Wind farm. 3 58 Societal Benefits of Marine Technology and the Challenges of Tomorrow Marine Technology, Oceanic Research Activities and Their Integration into the General Framework of International Law Foreword by Karen Kohanowich Montserrat Gorina-Ysern 4 The Sea from Space—Applying Remote Sensing to Societal Needs Elena McCarthy, Flora Lichtman 16 Marine Aquaculture: Today’s Necessity for Tomorrow’s Seafood Back Cover: (l-r) Quick Scatterometer image, courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech; Jellyfish floating under Arctic ice, photo courtesy OAR/National Undersea Research Program (NURP); Rendition of a wave farm made up of permanent magnet linear generator buoys, courtesy Oregon State University. MTS Journal design and layout: Michele A. Danoff, Graphics By Design Marine Technology Society Journal 5565 Sterrett Place Suite 108 Columbia, Maryland 21044 Copyright © 2007 Marine Technology Society, Inc. 73 24 Commentary by Justin Manley Marine Biotechnology: Realizing the Potential 75 Shirley A. Pomponi, Daniel G. Baden, Yonathan Zohar Book Review 32 Offshore Wind Electricity: A Viable Energy Option for the Coastal United States Economic and Social Benefits from Wave Energy Conversion Marine Technology POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to: Liesl Hotaling, Deidre Sullivan, Jill Zande Autonomous Underwater Vehicles: From the Garage to the Market 44 MTS members can purchase the printed Journal for $25 domestic and $50 foreign. Non-members and library subscriptions are $120 domestic and $135 foreign. Postage for periodicals is paid at Columbia, MD, and additional mailing offices. The Sensor Revolution: Benefits and Challenges for the Marine Technical Workforce John S. Corbin Walt Musial The Marine Technology Society Journal (ISSN 0025-3324) is published quarterly (spring, summer, fall, and winter) by the Marine Technology Society, Inc., 5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 108, Columbia, MD 21044. 68 Roger Bedard 51 Fresh Water from the Sea and Other Uses of Deep-Ocean Water for Sustainable Technologies David W. Jourdan Editorial Board Justin Manley Editor Battelle Corey Jaskolski The Marine Technology Society is a not-for-profit, international professional society. Established in 1963, the Society’s mission is to promote the exchange of information in ocean and marine engineering, technology, science, and policy. National Geographic Society Scott Kraus, Ph.D. New England Aquarium James Lindholm, Ph.D. California State University, Monterey Bay Dhugal Lindsay, Ph.D. Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology Phil Nuytten, Ph.D. Nuytco Research, Ltd. Please send all correspondence to: The Marine Technology Society 5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 108 Columbia, MD 21044 (410) 884-5330 Tel. (410) 884-9060 FAX Publications: [email protected] Membership: [email protected] Programs: [email protected] Director: [email protected] Online: www.mtsociety.org Terrence R. Schaff Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Edith Widder, Ph.D. Ocean Research and Conservation Association Jill Zande MATE Center Editorial Catherine Woody Publications Director Justin Manley Editor Amy Morgante Managing Editor Administration Bruce Gilman, P.E. President Ed Brenner Interim Executive Director Susan M. Branting Communications Manager Jeanne Glover Membership Manager Michael Hall Member Programs Manager Suzanne Voelker Administrator 2 Marine Technology Society Journal M E M B E R S H I P I N F O R M AT I O N may be obtained by contacting the Marine Technology Society. Benefits include: ■ Free subscription to the online Marine Technology Society Journal, with highly reduced rates for the paper version ■ Free subscription to the bimonthly newsletter, Currents, covering events, business news, science and technology features, and people in marine technology ■ Member discounts on all MTS publications ■ Reduced registration rates to all MTS and MTS-sponsored conferences and workshops ■ Member-only access to an expansive Job Bank and Member Directory ■ Reduced advertising rates in MTS publications ■ National recognition through our Awards Programs Individual dues are $75 per year. Life membership is available for a one-time fee of $1,000. Patron, Student, Emeritus, Institutional, Business, and Corporate memberships are also available. ADVERTISING Advertising is accepted by the Marine Technology Society Journal. For more information on MTS advertising and policy, please contact the managing editor. COPYRIGHT Copyright © 2007 by the Marine Technology Society, Inc. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the Marine Technology Society, provided that the base fee of $1.00 per copy, plus .20 per page is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923. For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. The fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service is 0025-3324/89 $1.00 + .20. Papers by U.S Government employees are declared works of the U.S. Government and are therefore in the public domain. The Marine Technology Society cannot be held responsible for the opinions given and the statements made in any of the articles published. ABSTRACTS Abstracts of MTS publications can be found in both the electronic and printed versions of Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA), published by Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, 7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. Electronic abstracts may be obtained through Geobase’s Oceanbase, Fluidex, and Compendex, which is published by Elsevier Science, The Old Bakery, 111 Queen Road, Norwich, NR1 3PL, United Kingdom. Microfishe may be obtained through Congressional Information Services, Inc., 4520 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 CONTRIBUTORS Contributors can obtain an information and style sheet by contacting the managing editor. Submissions that are relevant to the concerns of the Society are welcome. All papers are subjected to a stringent review procedure directed by the editor and the editorial board. The Journal focuses on technical material that may not otherwise be available, and thus technical papers and notes that have not been published previously are given priority. General commentaries are also accepted, and are subject to review and approval by the editorial board. INTRODUCTION Societal Benefits of Marine Technology and the Challenges of Tomorrow Karen Kohanowich NOAA’s Undersea Research Program T he planned theme for this edition was “What Has Marine Technology Done for You?” As the articles developed, however, it became apparent that a more pressing and resonant question was “What Will Marine Technology BE DOING for You?” And what can it do to improve the lives of your children and grandchildren? While past advances in the various fields of marine technology have provided significant value to society, the pace and extent of today’s advances put us at a threshold for significant breakthroughs that will help us predict environmental phenomena, measure the impacts of human activities, feed nations, cure illnesses, and provide alternative energy sources. The articles in this issue address a spectrum of disciplines in which notable marine technology advances are being made. Each article describes the values currently realized as a result of pragmatic application of marine technology; entices us with the potential those technologies hold in terms of the possible environmental, economic, social and political gains they may allow us to achieve; and presents the challenges to effectively harnessing, applying and realizing that potential. Together, the compilation urges us to think beyond the successes of today to the potential of the future. Elena McCarthy and Flora Lichtman describe the variety of applications of satellite remote sensing that range from environmental measurement and modeling to fisheries enforcement. The data provided by satellite sensors is poised to change the way we do business once we overcome technical challenges of effectively managing such vast amounts of data. John Corbin reviews the environmental impact and policy issues of marine aquaculture, and discusses the promise and the challenges of expanding operations further offshore. Marine biotechnology provides health and consumer benefits in the form of DNA replication, cosmetic products, cold water detergents, and, of course, many new medicines. Shirley Pomponi, Daniel Baden, and Yonathan Zohar point out that today’s advanced undersea collection capabilities and laboratory techniques promise even more solutions in this area. Marine technology also provides several promising options for alternative sources of energy. Walt Musial, Roger Bedard, and David Jourdan, respectively, describe the economic and clean energy potential of harnessing the wind, wave, and thermal forces of the ocean environment. Montserrat Gorina-Ysern describes the situation wherein legislative regulation, and legal and policy considerations can give impetus to the development of new marine technologies, and uses quieter acoustic devices and extended continental shelf delineation techniques as examples. The students of today will provide the solutions of tomorrow. Liesl Hotaling, Deidre Sullivan, and Jill Zande discuss the emerging need for a workforce well prepared in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills in order to take full advantage of new marine sensor technology and applications. Justin Manley adds a commentary on the rapid growth of small businesses that have embraced the development of AUV and glider technologies. No single journal can encompass all of the promise inherent in the future of marine technology. This issue presents a few examples to stimulate new ways of considering the future applications of marine technology, and engender an increased resolve to overcome technology, regulatory and policy hurdles. These articles encourage us not only to fully use the tools of today, but ask: what CAN this technology do to meet the societal needs of tomorrow? What needs to happen to get there? What impact can each individual have to influence that? We encourage MTS members and readers to entertain these questions as you read these and subsequent Journal articles, and especially as you go about your daily marine technology endeavors. The future depends on you! Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 3 PAPER The Sea from Space—Applying Remote Sensing to Societal Needs AUTHORS ABSTRACT Elena McCarthy NATO Undersea Research Center The use of satellite-based remote sensing systems for observing marine environments is presented. Satellite observations of the marine environment, including weather, support efforts in economic development, national defense, resource management, and policy making, and contribute to the comfort, health, and safety of the public. Several emerging uses of remote sensing, with applications beyond the scope of conventional marine environmental monitoring, are presented, including: maritime surveillance, international treaty enforcement, oil prospecting, and siting of offshore wind farms. As a tool, satellite remote sensing has great potential to contribute to the development of sound marine policy and informed decision making. Flora Lichtman Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution I. Introduction T he way we view the Earth has changed dramatically in the last several decades. Instead of a series of discrete parts, we now see the planet as an interconnected system that includes the land, oceans, atmosphere, and biosphere. Satellite-based observation systems have facilitated this understanding by providing a new spatial and temporal vantage point from which to view the Earth. Current satellite-based remote sensing generally relies on electromagnetic radiation (typically visible, infrared, and microwave) to obtain information about the ocean without physical contact (Lillesand et al., 2004). Remote sensing systems can be located on many platforms (manned and unmanned aircraft, for example), but this article focuses on those systems located on satellites. The sensors on board satellites fall into two basic groups: passive and active. Passive sensors record energy that is reflected or emitted from the sea at different spatial, spectral, and temporal scales. These types of sensors can image events such as phytoplankton blooms or measure sea surface temperature. Active space-born sensors, such as scatterometers and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), transmit energy and record the energy reflected back to the sensor from the sea. They typically operate in the microwave spectrum and therefore are not constrained by the availability of daylight and cloud-free skies as are optical sensors (Robinson, 2004). 4 Marine Technology Society Journal During the 1980s and 90s, satellite-based observing systems were developed and applied primarily to the study of natural phenomena (Martin, 2004). Since that time, new applications of remotely sensed data, many with direct benefits to society, have emerged. Satellite-based earth observation systems are improving public health, strengthening national security, and spurring economic growth. This paper discusses several marine applications of satellite remote sensing technologies. Though military and government efforts have sponsored many classified satellite missions, this paper focuses only on applications of nonmilitary, unclassified satellite data. Although the applications for satellite data are expanding, one criticism is that the data could be more useful if it were easier to locate and interpret by end users. But translating raw satellite data into useful information requires sophisticated interpretation techniques, significant funding, and interagency cooperation (NRC, 2003; 2005). This lack of synergy between research and operations has led to “transition failures” in which valuable data have been gathered but not applied appropriately by decision makers (NRC, 2003). The useful application of remote sensing data is also threatened by decreased funding for the observation missions themselves. For example, the United States’ extraordinary foundation of global observations is diminishing: between 2006 and the end of the decade, the number of operating missions will decrease dra- matically and the number of operating sensors and instruments on NASA spacecraft, most of which are well past their lifetimes, will decrease by 40 percent (NRC, 2007). II. History It was recognized long ago that observing the ocean from an Earth orbit could free scientists and engineers from the limitations of studying the ocean using ships and buoys. Satellites generally provide greater geographic coverage at higher temporal and spatial resolutions than in situ measurements. In 1978, the U.S. launched three satellites that provided quantitative, calibrated measurements of the ocean. These three satellites included the Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS), launched on board Nimbus-7, which was designed to make ocean color observations (NASA, 1996); the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) on board the TIROS-N satellite, designed to measure sea surface temperature (NOAA, 1998); and several instruments on Seasat, the first satellite dedicated specifically to making oceanographic measurements (Born, 1979). Other countries such as Japan, France, Canada, and the nations of the European Space Agency (ESA) later initiated their own ocean satellite missions (Robinson, 2004). To date, the number of nations that have launched ocean remote sensing satellites has grown to include at least eleven countries or groups of countries (Martin, 2004; Robinson, 2004). Ocean measurements routinely made from satellites include sea surface temperature; wind speed and direction; height and directional distribution of ocean waves; atmospheric water content and rain rate; sea surface height; extent and type of polar sea ice; and concentrations of sediment, phytoplankton and dissolved and suspended material (Gower, 2006; Martin, 2004; Robinson, 2004). The availability of satellite imagery on the Internet generally, and Google Earth® specifically, has increased awareness of imaging the earth from space and facilitated new applications for satellite imagery including disaster relief, resource management, and tourism development. Remote sensing is a rapidly developing discipline and new techniques and sensors are constantly emerging. In particular, increases in spatial, spectral, and temporal resolution have resulted in a growing diversity of new applications. III. Uses of Satellite Imagery Over the Sea: Some Recent Examples Because a majority of remote sensing professionals were trained in the earth sciences and geography, most applications of remote sensing historically focused on environmental monitoring (NRC, 2001). But, as more satellites and instruments were launched, with ever expanding capabilities, applications of remote sensing beyond the scope of conventional environmental monitoring have emerged. In turn, societal benefits have expanded to encompass not only scientific research and environmental monitoring but public safety and human health, economic development, and global climate monitoring. A discussion of several emerging applications of remote sensing data and how these applications benefit society follows. a. Oil Prospecting from Space Commercially available remote sensing data can be useful for the exploitation of natural resources. For example, satellite-based SAR has been used to map large areas of the sea where potential oil and gas reserves might be found. Oil migrates naturally through cracks from deposits deep below the ocean floor, releasing oil into the world’s surface waters. This oil can be seen in imagery taken by SAR sensors on board satellites such as the Canadian Space Agency’s RADARSAT and the ESA’s Envisat. The very thin oil layer on the water dampens the small (capillary) waves, and reflects the radar signal away from the satellite rather than toward it. This creates a discontinuity in the radar image that usually appears dark where there is a slick. By examining the size and shape of the discontinuities on a SAR image along with other data such as bathymetric and gravity measurements, a skilled operator can often differentiate among ice, pollution, biogenic slicks, oil seeps, wind shadows, and oily bilge water. Once the presence of oil on the surface is ascertained, the natural seep can be traced back to its source on the seafloor. Oil companies, such as Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil company, and PEMEX, Mexico’s state oil and gas company, commonly use satellite-based SAR technology to identify areas with potential hydrocarbon deposits and to plan their seismic exploratory activities. This method has proven effective particularly in deepwater and has been used during exploration activities in Nigeria, Brazil, Angola, and the Gulf of Mexico (Wagner, 2006). Most recently, previously undetected oil seeps offshore Siberia and in the Barents Sea were found in SAR imagery. One advantage of using this radar survey technique is that it is less expensive than aerial or seismic surveys: a satellite survey costs tens of thousands of dollars, while a typical seismic survey of the same area has a price tag of hundreds of millions of dollars (NASA, 1999). Industry representatives report that a petroleum company can screen large areas of the ocean using SAR imagery for $0.50 per square kilometer—an economical method when one considers that a single satellite images can cover up to 500 square kilometers of ocean (Wagner, 2006). The success of SAR imagery in detecting oil on the sea surface depends strongly on the environmental and weather conditions on the date of image acquisition, however. The effects of oil slicks on the sea surface can be confused with atmospheric effects due to wind shadowing and heavy rainfall (Gade et al., 1998; Trivero et al., 1998). Generally, slicks can be seen in SAR images only when the FIGURE 1 Naturally Occurring Oil Seeps. The top image outlines (in red) three seeps off the coast of Western Africa on December 12, 1997. Two seeps observed in the same location 47 days later (bottom image) are outlined in green. Source: RADARSAT-1 image © Canadian Space Agency 1997. Received by the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing. Processed and distributed by RADARSAT International. Image analysis and interpretation by Infoterra Ltd. (Color figures are available at http://www.mtsociety.org/ publications/journal.cfm). wind speed is not too high or too low. If the wind is too high, waves induced by the strong wind break and drag the oil below the surface where it cannot be detected. During periods of low wind speeds, the surface of the sea remains flat, making it difficult to differentiate between flat, calm water, and flat, oil-covered water. Integrating other data types such as meteorological and oceanographic data, both remotely sensed and in situ, aids in the interpretation of the satellite imagery and can help overcome these limitations (Bentz et al., 2004). b. Pollution Monitoring and Treaty Enforcement The same imagery that is used to exploit natural resources can also be used to protect them. Satellite-based radar is used to detect oil spills, forecast slick propagation, and to assess coastal and marine environmental impact from spills originating at offshore rigs. The use of the imagery is invaluable in determining the Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 5 size of the spill and in monitoring its subsequent movements. Several operational automated slick detection systems are presently under development. One automated system, run by Petrobras of Brazil, relies on emergency tasking of the satellite in the event of a spill (Wagner, 2006; Stephens, 2004; Bentz, 2001). After the area of interest is imaged by the satellite, the processed imagery is delivered in near real-time (generally in four hours or less from the time of acquisition) to Petrobras who then assimilates the data to extract the location and extent of the oil and integrate it into an oil spill model. This model then extrapolates the future movement and spatial distribution of the oil—information that is critical to a disaster response team. This application exemplifies a successful transition from raw data to operations—the data assimilation system and oil spill models utilize the raw data to make useful analyses and forecasts in a timely way. These types of automated systems can also be used to identify illegal oil discharge from ships and prevent the introduction of pollutants. In this way, satellite imagery helps inform treaties such as the 1983 Bonn Agree- ment, a rigorously enforced multi-lateral agreement for dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil and other harmful substances. Under this agreement, monitoring schemes were established to trace oil spills back to the ship from which they originated using SAR imagery in conjunction with vessel identification systems. Other satellite-based technologies such as infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) sensors are used to determine spatial extent (de Sherbinin et al., 2002). This technique has proven useful for surveillance but, under the Bonn Agreement, photographic evidence is still required to prosecute a ship’s owner. Remote sensing can also help ensure compliance with international maritime agreements—it is used to monitor illegal ballast water discharge and prevent the introduction of aquatic nuisance species in support of the MARPOL Act (Pavlakis et al., 2001). As with oil, the discharge of ballast water creates a discontinuity in SAR imagery that can often be traced back to a ship (also visible in the SAR imagery). In this application, SAR not only locates marine pollution originating from ships, but more importantly, deters ship owners and operators from vio- lating the agreements. The advantage of monitoring ships from space is that it provides greater coverage at a lower cost than traditional methods, and provides images of areas that can be difficult to reach. Satellite imagery can also be used to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of existing international treaties or regimes. In this way, it has been used as an environmental monitoring tool to globally survey and assess wetlands in support of the 1971 international Ramsar Convention to protect wetlands (ESA, 2006b). On a political level, satellite imagery also plays an important role. It has been used to determine international water boundaries and surface water areas. By providing visual evidence of environmental problems, it can help generate commitments to new treaties and resolutions.Wide dissemination of satellite imagery can also build the public support needed for environmental treaties—one of the most important factors in treaty effectiveness. This in turn, can spur politicians to take action. In summary, data from remote sensing can help fill the gaps that often become obstacles to the development of sound environmental policy and solid, science-based decision making. FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 RADARSAT image of land-based spill off of Lebanon, 23 July 2006. Air strikes on 13 and 15 July 2006 hit a land-based oil-fueled power plant on the Lebanese coast 30 km south of Beirut. An estimated 30,000 tons of heavy fuel oil spilled into the Mediterranean where a combination of wind and currents pushed the oil out to sea and along the coast. Source: RADARSAT-1 image © Canadian Space Agency 2006. “Prestige” oil spill off the coast of Spain. The photograph shows the ship in the upper right-hand corner and the resulting slick. The ASAR image was created on 17 November 2002, 4 days after the ship started leaking. Source: images courtesy of European Space Agency © ESA 2002. 6 Marine Technology Society Journal c. Protecting Fisheries and Economic Interests Satellite data can be used to enforce compliance with international pollution-prevention treaties by identifying non-compliance. They can also be used to ensure that fishery privileges in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are not violated. French authorities, for example, have reported a 95% reduction in fish piracy in the Southern Ocean’s Kerguelen Islands since SAR satellite surveillance was initiated in February 2004 (Losekoot and Schwab, 2005). To combat illegal fishing of the Patagonian toothfish, a SAR receiving station was located on Kerguelen Island to monitor the region around the clock and in all weather conditions. SAR provided an ideal monitoring tool because the French Exclusive Economic Zone includes almost one million square kilometers of ocean, an area too large to effectively survey with ships. The SAR images are received at Kerguelen in real time and automatically processed to extract the radar signature of ships in the area. These radar signatures along with each ship’s position are sent to French authorities on Reunion via satellite link. Illegal vessels can then be quickly identified because authorized vessels are required to have an Argos satellite transmitter aboard which broadcasts the ship’s location and identification. These ship’s positions are then matched with radar signatures to discriminate illegal vessels whose locations are sent to French navy patrol boats who can intercept the rogue vessels. Just a few months after its installation, the system celebrated a major success when it identified a Honduran vessel with an illegal catch of 60 tons aboard (ESA, 2005). 1997 (see www.orbimage.com). ORBIMAGE provides several types of products. A singlelayer image or dataset of chlorophyll a for a 512 x 512 km area costs on the order of $500 for a single-user license. These data include plankton concentration, plankton frontal analysis, sea surface temperature, sub-surface temperature, near real-time surface currents, sea surface height anomalies, complete weather information, and fish location recommendations provided by ORBIMAGE’s oceanographers. Other products include maps that cover an approximate area of 2,000 km2 and are delivered directly via email to fishing vessels. ORBIMAGE also provides specialized services, such as the SeaStar Albacore Service, which provides fish-finding maps customized for seasonal albacore trolling fleets. The direct download license for this service costs approximately $100,000 per year and can be used with one’s own high-resolution picture transmission antenna. It offers direct access to OrbView-2 data for a circular region of approximately 4,000 km in diameter. Roffer’s Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc. (ROFFS) provides a similar service (www.roffs.com). Founded in 1987, ROFFS sells satellite-derived environmental data to commercial and recreational fishers from the Northeast Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico. Combining ship and buoy data with imagery from NOAA’s AVHRR sensors, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensors, and satellite-based altimeter data, ROFFS fishing analyses incorporate: water temperature, water color, bottom topography, history of ocean fronts, orientation of local currents, biological quality of the water, forage preference of the target species, availability of forage, and habitat preference of the forage and target species to predict optimal regions for fishing (Figure 4). An unlimited seasonal plan for a selected area costs on the order of $2000, while a single analysis costs around $64. e. Habitat Mapping and Ecosystem Modeling: Coral Reefs Remote sensing can also help monitor sites of natural productivity in the ocean, like coral reefs. Around the world, coral reefs are threatened by increasing ocean temperatures and human activities, such as fishing (Bellwood et FIGURE 4 Roffs fisheries oceanographic analysis for the Ecuador area. Created on October 18, 2001 using data from the previous three days. Based on a multiple factor analysis, the symbols (black dots) mark the areas where bait concentrations are expected and where fishing action is anticipated to be better compared with other (non-marked) areas. Source: Mitchell Roffer, Roffer’s Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc. d. Finding Fish with Satellites Remote sensing is used not only as a tool to regulate fisheries, but also to exploit them. Satellite imagery can direct fishing fleets to large schools of fish by tracking currents, ocean features, and weather fronts. Numerous private companies promote satellite imagery as a road map to guide fishing vessels towards a catch. For example, ORBIMAGE SeaStar Fisheries Service provides data collected from its own multispectral (8 channel) OrbView-2 satellite, launched in Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 7 al., 2004). For some reefs, these stresses have led to massive die-offs at rates unparalleled in the last 10,000 years. As coral reefs change dramatically, remote sensing has emerged as an effective way to measure, document and track these sensitive ecosystems. The Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project, run by the Institute for Marine Remote Sensing at the University of South Florida, aims to map and classify coral reefs worldwide using over 1,700 high resolution (30 m) multispectral Landsat 7 images acquired between 1999 and 2003. The project, funded by NASA’s Oceanography Program, will provide the first ever uniform global map of shallow water reef systems. This baseline map will allow researchers to examine the structure and extent of shallow reef ecosystems in the Caribbean-Atlantic, Pacific, Indo-Pacific, and Red Sea. The work allows for an examination of the similarities and differences between reef structures on a scale much greater than that obtained from traditional field studies. In related work, a global team of researchers used the imagery from the Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project to estimate how many reefs are within Marine Protected Areas (Mora et al., 2006). The study overlaid the Millennium Project’s Landsat maps and other reef imagery, with GIS layers of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The researchers found that only 18.7 percent of the world’s reefs are located within MPAs, and less than two percent of all reefs are within MPAs that actively limit human activities that can damage them. This type of large-scale ocean management analysis was made possible by the widespread availability of remote sensing data. Satellite altimeters, like the AmericanFrench collaborative mission called Jason-1, can also provide useful information concerning threats to coral reefs. The ocean has varying surface topography: in short, when water warms, it expands, pushing the surface level up in some areas. An altimeter maps the surface height of the ocean and is extremely useful for looking at broad ocean currents and providing an indication of subsurface temperatures. From its vantage 860 miles above the ocean, Jason-1 can measure ocean surface topography to an accuracy of 3.3 cm. As coral reefs are known to be highly sensitive to 8 Marine Technology Society Journal FIGURE 5 Map of Mayotte’s Reef in Indian Ocean derived from Landsat-7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper. Source: Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project, University of South Florida. changes in temperature, altimetry data used in conjunction with AVHRR data is useful for reef monitoring and assessing reef habitat on a global scale. f. Commercial Shipping: Tracking Ice Flows Knowing the location of icebergs and sea ice is essential to operators of tankers, oil rigs, icebreakers, and military vessels in polar waters. In the Canadian Arctic, navigation is limited to a brief season between July and October, when the ice is weaker and open water is present. Competitive sailors also require ice data—the Volvo Ocean Challenge is just one of several professional sailing races that rely on satellite ice tracking to help navigate southern waters (ESA, 2006). Commercial fisheries, such as the Alaskan snow crab industry in the Bering Sea, require information on ice edge to know where to set their traps. Ice data are also used to help manage hydropower generation by determining hydropower potential of a glacier system and calculating seasonal runoff. Finally, ice analysis is increasingly used as a record of ice conditions to support climate change studies. Sea ice can be tracked via satellite with instruments such as passive microwave sensors and scatterometers (which provide low spatial resolution but high temporal acquisition frequency) and satellite-based active sensors such as SARs (which provide high spatial resolution but low temporal acquisition frequency). Other sensors used in ice tracking include the AVHRR, originally developed for meteorological applications but useful for ice monitoring due to its frequent temporal coverage and ready availability. In addition to visible imagery, the thermal bands of the AVHRR provide an indication of ice type and age at a resolution of 1 km even in times of polar darkness. Another source of ice data is the US Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DSMP) which uses the Operational Line Scan System (OLS) to provide visible and thermal imagery at a resolution of 0.5 km. Passive microwave imagery from the Special Sensor Microwave/ Imager (SSM/I) instrument on the DSMP satellites provides microwave radiometry over a swath of 1394 km at a coarser resolution (12.5 km to 25 km). However, approximately 70% of the time, cloud cover or fog typically ob- FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 Icebergs in the Southern Ocean as imaged by ASAR. Source: European Space Agency. Ice analysis in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 25 March 2004. This analysis incorporates data from the black and white RADARSAT SAR image shown above and also includes imagery from reconnaissance flights and optical data from NOAA AVHRR, Envisat MERIS, and TERRA’s MODIS sensor. Source: Canadian Ice Service. RADARSAT-1 image © Canadian Space Agency 2004. scures the part of the ice pack of greatest concern to ship traffic. For this reason, SARs on board the Canadian Space Agency’s RADARSAT, ESA’s Envisat, and ESA’s Remote Sensing Satellite series (ERS 1/2) are optimal for sea ice mapping because of their all-weather, day/night and high-resolution imaging capabilities (Flett, 2003). Radar data can aid in determining ice concentration and type, identifying ice features and icebergs, and tracking ice motion. Information on total ice concentration, location of the ice edge, ice type and thickness, ice topography, the state of ice decay, and iceberg and ice island location can be derived directly from radar imagery. From these data, detailed maps are created that provide accurate and timely information about ice conditions in the waters for navigators. The use of SAR in monitoring ice flow is operational in many countries including the U.S., Canada, Denmark, and several other European nations. It is estimated that over 10,000 scenes of SAR data are collected annually for use in operational ice monitoring (Bertoia et al., 2004). This results in substantial cost savings due to the reduction of aircraft reconnaissance and the use of more efficient ship transit routes. operations. Historically such surface wind measurements were made by instruments on ships and buoys, but their coverage was insufficient to provide a global wind map. Now the QuikSCAT satellite can provide daily near-global coverage at spatial resolutions of 25 km. This satellite uses a scatterometer called Seawinds, a unique circular scanning active sensor, which yields more robust wind measurements than in the past. Winds can also be derived from SAR imagery available from satellites such as RADARSAT-1 and Envisat’s ASAR. A project at the NATO Undersea Research Centre derives wind speeds and other environmental information from SAR imagery over large areas to support efforts in operational oceanography—the coupling of models, satellites, and in situ observations in order to describe the state of the ocean and to provide a predictive capability (Teixeira et al., 2007). FIGURE 8 Derivation of wind speed and ship locations in SAR Image. Source: RADARSAT-1 image © Canadian Space Agency 2006. Received and processed by the NATO Undersea Research Centre Remote Sensing Group. Image analysis and interpretation by Boost Technologies. g. Defense: Maritime Surveillance and National Security Measurements of wind speed and direction near the ocean surface are critical for predicting weather patterns and planning military Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 9 The project involves down linking SAR data in real-time and deriving wind speed at higher spatial resolutions than have previously been possible. Moreover, from the same image, strategic information about the location, speed, and direction of ships can be derived. Therefore, from one SAR image, a synoptic view of the sea over a large area is created, which provides not only environmental data but also operational information such the location and direction of vessels in the area. (See Figure 8). Data from other satellites such as NASA’s AQUA and TERRA can be used to derive horizontal underwater visibility, an important parameter for covert diver operations. Additional data from in situ sensors, models, and other sources is also incorporated in a process known as data fusion. The integration of these data contribute to an overall awareness of the region, known as Maritime Situational Awareness (MSA), essential information for NATO troops. This information can be provided in near real-time and is vital for planning and conducting search and rescue missions, naval refuelings, beach landings, studying ocean basin circulation, and locating frontal regions in support of NATO maritime operations (Alvarez et al., 2000). Another example of ocean surveillance, funded under the auspices of ESA, is known as the MARISS program (European Maritime Security Services). This effort is developing an automated system for detecting vessels that integrates satellite data with coastal surveillance radar, automatic identification systems (AIS), and vessel traffic management systems. This allows for surveillance of vessels in the territorial waters of Europe and has applications to national security, border control, and the prevention of illegal trafficking (Silvestri, 2006). h. Energy: Planning Offshore Wind Farms The development of offshore wind farms is progressing rapidly, particularly in Europe. Construction of wind farms in clusters is especially attractive because grid connections and maintenance costs can be shared. However, the distance between wind farms must be carefully calculated to avoid the reduction of wind speed caused by wind turbines, known as shadowing. Accurate estimates of wind character- 10 Marine Technology Society Journal istics, specifically shadowing (also known as the wind farm wake effect) are critical, particularly during the development stages of the project. However, the spatial variability of wind distribution has historically been difficult to capture with conventional in situ methods. For this reason, satellite platforms such as RADARSAT-1 and the ESA’s ERS-1, ERS-2, and Envisat provide wind speed estimates at resolutions of a few square kilometers that are accurate to within +/- 2 m/s. These satellitebased SARs provide measurements that are precise enough to enable the early stages of wind farm planning, before higher-accuracy on-site measurements are required. The two largest offshore wind farms in the world are located at the Danish sites Horns Rev and Nysted, which became operational in 2002 and 2003 respectively. Recently, micro-siting and environmental impact studies were carried out in both locations, as the development of two additional wind farms has been scheduled in the vicinity (Schneiderhan et al., 2003). To carry out the impact studies, a series of satellite and airborne SAR images were analyzed to determine the downstream distance over which the two wind farms impact the marine wind climate. High-resolution ERS-2 SAR and Envisat ASAR imagery was used in conjunction with data from Germany’s Experimental airborne SAR (E-SAR). The E-SAR data had a much higher spatial resolution (2 m) than the satellite SAR images (25 m) but a longer acquisition time (2-4 minutes per scene), resulting in fluctuations in wind speed and direction within a single E-SAR scene. Wind maps were generated from the SAR images and spatial averages of wind speed were obtained upstream, within, and downstream of the wind turbine arrays. Shadowing of up to 20% of the ambient wind speed was found 5-20 km downstream of the wind farms. The use of SAR imagery in the planning stages of wind farm development makes the essential “shadowing” analysis more efficient and cost-effective. i. Aquaculture: Siting Offshore Fish Farms Global fisheries worldwide are declining, while demand for seafood is rising. A recent study found that, based on the current trajectory, a complete collapse of all species presently fished could occur within forty years (Worm et al., 2006). Aquaculture may be a way to stem the tide: already, it is the fastest growing food production industry (FAO, 2006). Satellite imagery is proving to be a useful tool for this fast-growing agribusiness. Fish farmers can assess the chemical, biological and physical characteristics of potential fish farm sites without the need to conduct on-site surveys. Temperature is one of the most important factors in selecting an economically viable fish farm site. Water temperatures above or below the optimum temperature can adversely affect reproduction, mortality, feeding, and growth rates of fish. In a recent study, scientists from the Institute of Aquaculture in Scotland used NOAA-AVHRR imagery to pinpoint optimum locations for off-shore floating pens of sea bass and sea bream near the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands (Pérez et al., 2005). Over a 3-year period, approximately 135 radiometrically corrected images were used to determine average sea temperature (SST). Each image was analyzed to calculate SST from algorithms that use channels 4 and 5 of the AVHRR. The SST data were then averaged and the areas with the optimal SST values were selected as most favorable sites for fish pens. For sea bass and sea bream, higher temperatures (within a range) produce higher growth rates and shorter reproduction cycles. And for a fish farmer, this means greater profit. j. Coastal Development Monitoring changes in bathymetry and sediment transport regimes caused by coastal development is an important commercial application of satellite imagery. Externalities due to dredging and other construction activities include the erosion of beach and dune areas, increased turbidity over vital ecosystems such as coral reefs and sea grass beds, and erosion of tourist beaches. As a result, construction and dredging activities must be constantly monitored to determine their environmental impacts through all phases of a project. To do so, in situ measurements are typically carried out using turbidity meters and water samples which can determine suspended sediment concentration. However, this type of analysis is expensive and time consuming. Remote sensing data provides greater coverage at a lower cost. An effort funded by ESA included the development of a prototype commercial service to monitor the impact of human activities on the coastal zone. The aim of the project, known as MOCCASSIN, was to measure changes to bathymetry and sediment transport caused by port development by producing maps of suspended sediment concentration and high-resolution bathymetry (Hesselmans et al., 2000). The project relied on satellite imagery from the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) (to measure total suspended sediment); SAR (to measure bathymetry in shallow areas); and the Modular Optoelectronic Scanner (MOS) on board the Indian Satellite IRSP3 (to measure total suspended matter). The bathymetry and sediment concentration data were then integrated with data from in situ sensors to provide a complete picture of the changes to the sediment transport regime. k. Human Health: Mitigating the Effects of Phytoplankton Blooms When exposed to certain conditions, algae reproduce at high rates, causing an “algal bloom.” Some types of algae can produce neurotoxins that can kill the animals that eat it, or can bio-accumulate in prey and kill higher level organisms. Humans may be poisoned by eating seafood caught in an area experiencing a harmful algal bloom. Blooms can also lead to depletion of available oxygen in the water, which can then kill fish and other organisms. Not only do blooms pose a health threat, they are costly: harmful algal blooms are estimated to produce $82 million in economic losses each year in the U.S. alone—$38 million in commercial fishing losses, $37 million in public health costs, $4 million in tourism impacts, and $3 million in coastal monitoring and management (Hoagland and Scatasta, 2006). In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA), which explicitly calls for research to advance the ability to predict and detect harmful blooms. Advanced warning is considered key to minimizing costs and risks of harmful algae blooms and remote sensing has proven to be a powerful forecasting tool. In 2004, NOAA developed a Harmful Algal Bloom Forecasting System to forecast and detect blooms using satellite imagery in conjunction with other monitoring techniques. Specifically, SeaWiFS provides data on the scattering of sediments in the water, which can be translated into accurate chlorophyll concentrations using a special algorithm (NOAA, 2006). The imagery can also be used to distinguish some species of algae from others because their cellular features produce FIGURE 9 This SeaWiFS image of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico from March 1, 1999 shows a nearshore concentration of an algal bloom in light blue-green. Source: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center. unique optical signatures discernable through satellite imagery. But chlorophyll concentrations are just one input to the forecasting system—in situ sampling is also required to ground-truth the satellite data and confirm the type of algae present. Because algal blooms have caused shellfish closures, fish kills, marine mammal deaths and respiratory problems in humans, the ability to effectively predict and monitor such blooms not only protects humans, but also minimizes the costs associated with such events. IV. Discussion The growth in satellite systems has been driven partly by advances in technology and partly by societal needs. The monitoring of weather conditions and global warming, fisheries management, offshore oil and gas exploration, national security, commerce, public health, and recreation and leisure activities have all benefited from remote sensing. Moreover, approximately 50 percent of the world’s population lives within 50 km of the coast, making half the world’s population particularly vulnerable to natural hazards such as hurricanes and tsunamis. Satellite remote sensing is playing an increasingly important role in addressing these societal concerns. Remotely sensed data are generally accurate and objective, provide consistent coverage over long time periods, can focus on various scales, and present large amounts of information without infringing on national sovereignty. As a tool for scientists, it provides nearly instantaneous coverage of very large areas of ocean space at high repetition rates and high resolution. Scientists have long recognized the power of remote sensing; however, the use of remote sensing for other disciplines such as policy development and treaty enforcement remains underexploited. The under-use of this technology can be traced to the fact that many environmental policymakers and social scientists have no experience with remote-sensing technologies. The technical expertise required to process and interpret remote sensing imagery is extensive and the data and the tools required (imagery, hardware and software) can be costly (NRC, 2003). Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 11 a. Technical Limitations From a technical standpoint, there are several shortcomings with satellite sensors and the resulting imagery. For sensors, these include anisotropy or hysteresis, cloud and haze cover which can limit the use of optical sensors, difficulties in making atmospheric corrections and calibrating sensors, and spacecraft anomalies. For imagery, problems include difficulties in image registration, highly variable interpretation of some types of imagery, and the challenges inherent in working with very large data sets. Moreover, remote sensing alone cannot be a substitute for in situ data: ground truthing is required for validation purposes. A recurring theme throughout this article is the need for multiple sensors: Satellite data from one sensor is often used in conjunction with data from airborne sensors, in situ instruments or data from another satellite. This synergistic use of multiple sensors with varying spatial, temporal, and spectral resolutions, particularly the fusion of active and passive data (such as radar with optical images) provides an extremely powerful tool. Finally, as the number of ground stations that can receive satellite imagery in real time has increased, so have the distribution channels for the processed data. The Internet has become a primary portal which provides access to remotely sensed data and metadata— some sites offer data, others offer tools for visualizing the imagery. The ability to download megabytes of imagery has made it feasible for many more people to display, manipulate, and interpret satellite imagery. With this widespread dispersal of data, however, comes a loss of control. It is therefore essential to ensure that the data are accurate, reliable, and include the necessary metadata. Furthermore, in many cases highly skilled users are required to interpret the data and understand the methodologies that produced the images. b. Legal Limitations In addition to technical issues, considerable legal and political issues are involved in the use of remote sensing over the sea. These include distribution and copyright practices, and the determination of funding and maintenance costs, which must be agreed upon in the case of 12 Marine Technology Society Journal joint ventures. But perhaps the most controversial issue resulting from the growing use of high spatial resolution imagery concerns privacy. In the case of ocean remote sensing, concerns over privacy are not as critical as on land because few areas of the ocean are privately held. Nevertheless, the globalization of remote sensing has created a flow of data outside traditional jurisdictional and national boundaries, thus placing it beyond traditional methods of legal control (Crowsey, 2007). Several commentators have observed a remarkable lack of comprehensive policy development with respect to legal and ethical concerns over privacy and the use high-resolution remote sensing technologies (Slonecker et al., 1998). c. Economic Limitations Historically, data rights, pricing, and distribution polices were determined by the governments owning the satellites. As a consequence, users had little choice in the market for imagery. However, the control and distribution of satellite imagery is migrating from the government to the private sector, creating an economic restructuring of the entire remote sensing community (Baker et al., 2001). Thirty-three percent of the satellites in orbit by the end of 2007 will be commercial. Sales by the satellite-based commercial remote sensing industry are expected to reach $2 billion by 2010 and prices are expected to drop as the number of commercial sources proliferates (Storey, 2006; NRC, 2003). This trend towards commercialization of satellite imagery, in combination with the rise of a global information infrastructure (i.e., the Internet), has created a fundamentally different world of remote sensing in the last ten years. V. Trends/Looking Ahead a. Technological Progress Methods for observing the ocean from space are moving ahead on all fronts, but the maturity of the techniques varies. Emerging trends include the use of multiple-look angle data and the development of imaging spectroscopy, a technique that samples hundreds of narrow and contiguous spectral bands ranging from visible to infrared (Toselli, 1991). Change detection is another application of satellite data that holds great promise as a tool to map glacier and sea-ice variations (Canty, 2006). More powerful computers have resulted in enhanced image processing and as data exchange becomes routine and automated, data distribution channels are becoming faster and more widespread. This highspeed data transfer results in near real-time (NRT) delivery of imagery which allows for rapid decision making. As linkages between raw data and decision makers become stronger, remote sensing will play a more important role in the field of “enviromatics”— the use of computer modeling to analyze the Earth’s environment, predict future trends, and improve decision making in resource management (Roush, 2005). A revolution in the size of satellites is also taking place. These new “micro-satellites” are small, low-cost spacecraft, often launched in constellations that function in all the same ways as much larger satellites. Some of these smaller satellites may provide higher resolution than previously available (Baker et al., 2001). In addition to lower costs, constellations of smaller satellites have the advantage of greater temporal resolution (i.e., reduced revisit intervals). b. Domestic and International Satellite Programs Historically the U.S. led the way in satellite remote sensing but in spite of past superiority, the U.S. satellite program is now perceived to be “severely deficient” (NRC, 2005). “Recently, six NASA missions with clear societal benefits and the established support of the earth science and applications community have been delayed, de-scoped, or cancelled.” (NRC, 2007). Not only is the U.S. losing ground, but it is not making the investment required to keep pace in the future. For example, presently there are 5 space-based radars in orbit, and 9 are expected by the end of 2011 (Stoney, 2006). None of them, however, is American. While the number of U.S. governmentfunded missions is decreasing, international efforts in satellite remote sensing are on the rise (Baker et al., 2001). Since the 1980s, the number of countries and multinational organizations that have launched imaging satellites has grown steadily. Presently, at least 21 nations own imaging satellites including Israel, Canada, India, and Japan (Ibid.; Stoney, 2006b). Moreover, many other nations are developing extensive expertise in using satellite imagery without operating their own spacecraft. c.Commercialization One trend that is observed both domestically and internationally is the emergence of a nascent marketplace for satellite imagery. This trend is due to a combination of several factors—economic, technological, and political (Baker et al., 2001). Market conditions have improved due to advances in smaller, more affordable satellites combined with a relaxation of restrictions on public access of imagery (Ibid.). Furthermore, enabling technologies such as more affordable computing power, larger capacity data storage systems, and userfriendly image processing software reduced the technical and price barriers for a wider range of customers. But commercial imagery remains a small percentage of satellite data. In the U.S., it is expected that commercial sources of satellite imagery will be an “important and high-leverage adjunct to government systems, [but] not as a general replacement” (NRC, 2007). An important distinction can be made in the way commercialization is taking place. In Europe, Canada, and Russia, civilian (government-owned) satellite enterprises such as ESA, are increasingly focused on selling data commercially. In the U.S., on the other hand, commercial (government licensed but privately owned) companies, such as Orbimage, are relying on U.S. government agencies as their biggest customers (Baker et al., 2001; NRC, 2002). Thus, it is reasonable to expect the imagery business will continue to be government-sponsored and/or subsidized in one way or another for the foreseeable future. VI. Transitioning from Research to Societal Benefits Over the past several decades, the use of remote sensing has increased dramatically. Some of the first proponents of satellite imagery emphasized early on that such systems should serve the needs of society beyond the narrow limitations of environmental science (NRC, 2003b; 2005). Yet, in spite of the use of remote sensing in an increasing number of disciplines and the growing distribution channels of satellite data, there has been much criticism of the slow transition of satellite data from researchers to operational users. The importance of transitioning satellite imagery and coupling it with appropriate decision-making systems was tragically emphasized in the aftermath of the 2004 Asian tsunami, which was detected by space-born and in situ sensors that were not coupled to an appropriate warning system (NRC, 2005). There are many cases in which satellite data with societal benefits are not being used operationally (for a list of several case studies see NRC, 2003). For example, between 1980 and 1997, more than a dozen airplanes were damaged or lost engine power after flying through volcanic ash (USGS, 1997). An instrument known as the Volcanic Ash Mapper Instrument (VOLCAM), designed to track volcanic ash and measure other compounds using UV and other sensors, was proposed as an add-on to existing spacecraft (NRC, 2003). The concept was strongly endorsed by the relevant federal agencies and a proposal was drafted which assigned responsibilities to several of them—NASA for mission development, flight hardware, software development, and scientific research; NOAA for data ingest, processing, and analysis; the Federal Aviation Administration for aviation control planning and education; and the U.S. Geological Survey for eruption prediction and diagnosis (Ibid.). But though the project had strong operational potential and garnered interagency enthusiasm, VOLCAM remained non-operational. The National Research Council suggests its failure was due to the fact that no single agency took the lead (Ibid.). In summary, VOLCAM “demonstrated strong operation potential but, despite substantial effort and interest in both the research and operational communities, has not successfully been transitioned to operational status” (Ibid.). This case illustrates a common problem with establishing remote sensing systems that have clear societal benefits: the transition from the research community to the operational community often requires the involvement of several government agencies and stakehold- ers, none of which may have the resources needed to take the lead. In the U.S., these potential leadership roles are spread across agencies. Internationally, the problem can be even more complex for efforts that involve multinational agencies such as ESA. VII. Conclusion The assimilation of environmental data by policymakers and the public is arguably more important now than ever before. Tracking the changes associated with global warming and its effects—including ice melt, sea level rise and extreme weather events—and using that data to inform policy will be crucial for mitigating the effects of climate change (IPCC, 2007; Moore, 2007). Remote sensing provides an invaluable tool for understanding global warming, but its value will be undermined if the data are not appropriately linked to decision making. Fundamental improvements need to be made to existing remote sensing systems because they presently only loosely connect three essential elements: (1) the raw data; (2) the analyses, models, and forecast that provide timely syntheses of information; and (3) the decision processes that use those analyses and forecasts to produce actions with direct societal benefits (NRC, 2003). This paper presented new applications of satellite remote sensing technologies with clear societal benefits and discussed several transitions of satellite measurements from research to operational use. Further efforts are in place to bridge the gap between data and decisionmaking systems, but there remains a clear need to develop more useful end products. A key factor in addressing this shortcoming remains the need to reconcile long-term research funding (curiosity-driven) with short-term funding (societal benefits). A recent NAS report warned that “the scientific community must focus on meeting the demands of society explicitly, in addition to satisfying its curiosity about how the Earth system works” (NRC, 2007). One tool—remote sensing—gives us the ability to do both. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 13 Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their very thoughtful and constructive comments. We would also like to acknowledge the valuable input from Chuck Trees and Joao Teixeira at the NATO Undersea Research Centre in La Spezia, Italy. References Alvarez, A. et al. 2000. A satellite based ocean forecasting system to support naval operations in crisis situations. SACLANTCEN Report SM-375, La Spezia, Italy. SACLANT Undersea Research Centre. Baker, J.C., K. O’Connell and R. Williamson, (eds). 2001. Commercial observation satellites: at the leading edge of global transparency. Rand Corporation Report MR-1229. Bellwood, D.R., T.P. Hughes & M. Nystrom. 2004. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature, 429: 827-833. Bentz, C.M. et al. 2004. Multi-sensor synergistic analysis of mesoscale oceanic features: Campos Basin, south-eastern Brazil. Int J Remote Sensing. 25(21):4835-4841. Bentz, C.M. and F.P. Miranda. 2001. Application of Remote Sensing Data for Oil Spill Monitoring in the Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2001. IGARSS ’01. IEEE 2001 International. Vol. 1, p. 333 – 335. Bertoia, C., et al. 2004. Synthetic Aperture Radar for Operational Ice Observation and Analysis at the U.S, Canadian, and Danish National Ice Centers, in Synthetic Aperture Radar Marine User’s Manual, U.S. Department of Commerce. Born, G.H., J.A. Dunne and D.B. Lamb. 1979. Reports: Seasat mission overview. Science 204:1405-6. Canty, M.J., 2006. Image Analysis, Classification and Change Detection in Remote Sensing. New York, CRC Press, 348 pages. Crowsy, R. 2007. Examining the legality of a bird’s eye view. Earth Imaging Journal, May/June. 14 Marine Technology Society Journal de Sherbinin, Alex et al. 2002. Remote sensing data: valuable support for environmental treaties. Environment. 44(1):20. European Space Agency. 2005. Envisat radar surveillance protects endangered prehistoric fish, 17 November 2005. http://www.esa.int/ esaCP/SEMPLU638FE_Protecting_0.html. European Space Agency. 2006. Satellites ensure safe passage through treacherous waters in volvo ocean race, March 6, 2006. http:// www.esa.int/esaCP/ SEMF02NVGJE_index_0.html 6. European Space Agency. 2006b. Ramsar and remote-sensing experts tackle threats to wetlands, 7 November 2006. http:// www.esa.int/esaEO/ SEMVA8PFHTE_index_0.html. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 500. 2006. State of World Aquaculture 2006. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, p 1. Flett, D.G. 2003. Operational use of SAR at the Canadian ice service: present operations and a look to the future. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Coastal and Marine Applications of SAR, 2003. Svalbard, Norway: European Space Agency. Gade, M. et al. 1998. The imaging of biogenic and anthropogenic surface films by the multipolarisation SIR-C/X-SAR. J Geophys Res. 103:18866-18866. [[CHECK PAGES #S]] Gower, J.F. 2006. Remote Sensing of the Marine Environment. Bethesda, MD: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 338 pages. Hesselmans, G.H.F.M. et al. 2000. Monitoring changes to bathymetry and sediment transport regimes caused by port development (MOCCASSIN). European Space Agency Report. Hoagland, P. and S. Scatasta. 2006. The economic effects of harmful algal blooms. In E. Graneli and J. Turner (eds.), Ecology of Harmful Algae. Ecology Studies Series. Ch. 30, pp. 391-402. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer-Verlag. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lillesand, T.M. et al. 2004. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, 5th edition. New Jersey, US, John Wiley and Sons, 763 pages. Losekoot, M. and P. Schwab. 2005. Operational use of ship detection to combat illegal fishing in the Southern Indian Ocean. In: IGARSS ’05. Proceedings, Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2005, Vol. 3: 1767- 1771. Seoul, Korea: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society. Martin, S. 2004. An Introduction to Ocean Remote Sensing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 426 pages. Moore, B. 2007. Congressional Hearing on National Imperatives for Earth Science Research before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. March 7. Mora, Camilo et al. 2006. Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science 23 June 2006: 312(5781):1750–1751. National Aeronautics and Space Agency. 1996. GES DISC DAAC Data Guide: Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) Instrument Guide, Version 2.0, September 1996, http://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/guides/GSFC/ guide/CZCS_Sensor.gd.shtml National Aeronautics and Space Agency. 1999. Slick technology helps detect oil. Innovation, Vol. 7, Number 1, Jan/Feb. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Polar Orbiter Data User’s Guide, November 1998. Available at: http:// www2.ncdc.noaa.gov/docs/podug/cover.htm. National Research Council of the National Academies Report. 2001. Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Information and Applications. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Robinson, I.S. 2004. Measuring the Oceans from Space. Chichester, UK: Praxis Publishing, 669 pages. Roush, W. 2005. Enviromatics. Technol Rev, May. National Research Council of the National Academies Report. 2002. Toward New Partnerships in Remote Sensing: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Schneiderhan, T. et al. 2003. SAR wind fields for offshore wind farming. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Coastal and Marine Applications of SAR. Svalbard, Norway: European Space Agency. National Research Council of the National Academies Report. 2003. Satellite Observations of the Earths’ Environment—Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Silvestri, S. et al. 2006. MARISS GMES services element consolidation for maritime security. In: Proceedings SeaSAR 2006, Advances in SAR Oceanography from ENVISAT and ERS missions. Frascati, Italy: European Space Agency. National Research Council of the National Academies Report. 2003b. Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government: Information for Management and Decision Making. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Slonecker, E. et al. 1998. Emerging legal and ethical issues in advanced remote sensing technology. Journal of the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 64(6):589. National Research Council of the National Academies, Space Studies Board Report. 2005. Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. National Research Council of the National Academies, Report. 2007. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 047. 2006. Annual Report of the Gulf of Mexico Harmful Algal Bloom Operational Forecast System (GOM HAB-OFS): October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005 (Operational Year #1) Pavlakis, P., D. Tarchi and A. Sieber. 2001. On the monitoring of illicit vessel discharges, European Commission Document, EUR 19906 EN. Pérez, O.M., T.C. Telfer and L.G. Ross. 2005. Geographical information systems-based models for offshore floating marine fish cage aquaculture site selection in Tenerife, Canary Islands. Aquac Res. 36(10): 946–961. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1997. Volcanic Ash—Danger to Aircraft in the North Pacific. USGS Fact Sheet 030-97. USGS, Reston, Va. Wagner, M. 2006. Drilling deep for energy: radar imagery improves oil exploration success. Earth Imaging Journal, 2(5):10-15. Worm, B. et al. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314(5800): 787-790. Stephens, K. 2004. Brazilian oil company continues to use RADARSAT-1, Earth Imaging Journal, 23 March. Stoney, W.E. 2006. ASPRS Guide to Land Imaging Satellites. In: NOAA Commercial Remote Sensing Symposium, September 2006. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Stoney, W.E. 2006b. Markets and opportunities. Earth Imaging Journal, 2006. Available at http://www.eijournal.com/ Markets_Opportunities.asp. Teixeira, J., E. Coelho and E. McCarthy. 2007. Real-time high resolution atmospheric prediction at the NATO undersea research centre. NURC Report (in press). La Spezia, Italy. Toselli, F. and J. Bodechtel (eds). 1991. Imaging Spectroscopy: Fundamentals and Prospective Applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 280 pages. Trivero, P., B. Fiscella, F. Gómez and P. Pavese. 1998. SAR detection and characterization of sea surface slicks. Int J Remote Sensing, 19(3):543-548. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 15 PAPER Marine Aquaculture: Today’s Necessity for Tomorrow’s Seafood AUTHOR ABSTRACT John S. Corbin Hawaii Aquaculture Development Program (Retired) Aquaculture Planning and Advocacy LLC Aquaculture is the fastest growing segment of the global food production sector, valued at $70.3 billion in 2004. In recent years, global capture fisheries have leveled off at around 95 mmt per year, with little or no prospect of increasing yields. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (UNFAO) has concluded that increases in future seafood supplies must come from aquatic farming. The United States (U.S.) industry has been among the fastest growing agriculture sectors. Domestic seafood from capture and culture fisheries provides about 20% of annual consumption, the balance coming from imports. Future supply will come from either increasing imports or, preferably, expanding domestic aquaculture and fisheries sources. The greatest opportunity for domestic growth is marine aquaculture, particularly placement of large and small farms in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Additional benefits can accrue if large-scale marine hatchery technology is developed, so that fingerlings can be produced for wild stock enhancement and management. Currently, there is no permitting and leasing regime for ocean farming in the U.S. EEZ. In response to several national commissions, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) is spearheading a bold effort to implement long-term marine aquaculture development objectives and create an EEZ permitting and leasing mechanism. Enabling legislation, entitled the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007, is before Congress. Anchoring fish farms in the relatively shallow near shore and the EEZ is an exciting prospect for greater U.S. seafood self-sufficiency. However, there are many institutional, environmental and technical issues to resolve. More compelling is the prospect of developing new marine aquaculture technologies, e.g., single-point moorings, untethered cages, and integrated multi-trophic systems, to sustainably utilize the deep ocean beyond the EEZ. Successfully tackling this looming challenge will need the diverse expertise of the U.S. marine technology industry. Seafood, the Global View E ven a casual look at the seafood section of your neighborhood supermarket leads to the inescapable conclusion that farmed seafood is here to stay. Usually half the products are farmed and more than three-quarters come from countries outside the United States (U.S.). Aquaculture, or the farming of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants, is a very important modern technology that contributes in a big way to world seafood supplies. Aquaculture is the fastest growing segment of the global food production sector, expanding at 9% per year since 1950. Supply from cultured sources has burgeoned from 1 million metric tons (mmt) in the 1950s to 59.4 mmt in 2004, worth $70.3 billion. Today, over 40% of all fisheries products from all sources and over 50% of all seafood products consumed (excluding that which is turned into fish meal and fish oil) are farmed. Increasing consumer demand for quality seafood and the basic human need for protein are driving this explosive growth around the world, particularly in Asia (UNFAO, 2007). Importantly, statistics indicate production from the world’s capture fisheries has leveled off at around 95 mmt a year. The global fishing industry in general suffers from over capacity, with too many boats chasing too few fish (UNFAO, 2006). It is estimated that a third of world fish stocks are being harvested at unsustainable rates and many are being depleted beyond recovery due to severe habitat degradation and inadequate resource management. Further, a focus on highly migratory species such as tuna reveals 66% of stocks ranking as over- 16 Marine Technology Society Journal exploited. This rather bleak picture has led many fisheries experts to conclude that future increases in global supply will come from widespread application of sustainable aquaculture technologies (Anderson, 2002; UNFAO, 2006). Further underscoring the importance of aquaculture development to modern society is the important role of fisheries products in the food security of developing nations. Food security is defined by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) as “a condition when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life .” In the most highly populated, traditional fish-eating countries in Asia (e.g., China, Malaysia, Indone- sia and Thailand), annual per capita consumption of seafood is between 25 and 50 kg per person, and fish products account for an average of 20% of the common people’s dietary protein requirements. Any reduction of capture fisheries sources could have severe consequences on the food security in the region and could affect its political stability (Brown, 2004). Fish are likewise very important to the food economies of many developed nations. For example, most countries of Western Europe also have per capita consumption levels between 20 and 50 kg per year, with Portugal being the highest at 58 kg (UNFAO, 2006). Any restriction of supplies to these developed nations would be extremely disruptive to existing food distribution networks. Seafood, the United States View Aquaculture production in the U.S. expanded from 140,000 mt in 1993 to 420,000 mt in 2003. The industry is touted as an important and growing sector of the multi-billion dollar agriculture industry. Seafood occupies an increasingly important place in the health-conscious American diet, even with current annual per capita consumption at a modest 7.4 kg and growing (Nesheim and Yaktine, 2007; NOAA, 2007d). U.S. commercial fisheries are reportedly in better condition than most foreign stocks, though a few regional stocks are being over exploited (PEWOC, 2003; NMFS, 2007). For example, recently several stocks have faced government closures to rebuild capacity, e.g., California abalone and sea bass and Hawaii deep water snappers. In general, yields from commercial fisheries within the 50 states have remained relatively flat since the early 1990s (NMFS, 2007). In 2004, of the 6 mmt of seafood consumed in the U.S. each year, about 1.5 mmt was from domestic commercial fisheries and nearly 0.5 mmt was provided by domestic aquaculture (NOAA, 2006a). The remaining 4 mmt, or about 70% of supply, came from imports of aquatic products, mostly in processed forms and predominantly from Asian countries, resulting in a politically sensitive annual $8 billion seafood trade deficit. It is notable that nearly half of these seafood imports are actually farmed elsewhere in the world, sometimes under unsustainable conditions (NOAA, 2006; NOAA, 2007c). More recent estimates put imports at just over 80% of U.S. seafood supply (NOAA, 2007c). U.S. dependence on foreign sources, as consumers demand more quality seafood, may not be sustainable or desirable in the interconnected world of the 21st century. Seafood demand in affluent areas around the globe, such as the expanding urban centers of Asia and Europe, will likely grow and attract more product. In addition, more resources are being devoted by multi-lateral and bi-lateral aid agencies and third world governments to increasing the quantities of aquatic protein available to the rural poor in developing countries (UNFAO, 2006). These influential, long- term trends and the inherent volatility of international seafood supplies due to weather extremes, non-tariff trade issues, geopolitical disputes, and market forces, have led to a growing recognition by U.S. politicians and resource managers that increasing domestic seafood supplies through capture fisheries enhancement and aquaculture should be a national priority to assure adequate availability of safe and high-quality seafood for an expanding population (Cicin-Sain et al., 2001; USCOOP, 2004; NOAA, 2006; NOAA, 2007b; Weeks, 2007). A Future of Unfulfilled Demand What does the future hold for seafood consumption globally and in the U.S.? According to the United Nations, as the global human population inevitably expands, demand for aquatic foods will increase. Moreover, supplies from static or declining capture fisheries will not expand to meet the need and aquaculture must increase its contribution (UNFAO, 2006). Worldwide, just to maintain the current level of per capita consumption, aquaculture will need to reach 80 mmt by 2050 (FAO, 2002). Other estimates are more immediate and project a potential increase in per capita consumption from 16 kg to 21 kg and 2.3 billion additional people, requiring an additional 40 to 60 mmt from aquaculture production by 2030 (Silva, 2001). As a practical matter, meeting these projections with aquaculture technology means establishing the equivalent of another global salmon farming industry at today’s volumes, every year for the next 24 years (Forster, 2006). This is a daunting prospect for both developed and developing countries. Demand for seafood is expected to grow in the U.S. as people seek high-quality and nutritious foods as part of a healthy diet and disposable income remains high. Conservatively, assuming the current per capita consumption of 7.4 kg per year is maintained, just with current population growth projections, the U.S. will need an additional 2 mmt per year by 2025 or double existing domestic supplies. If consumption is increased from one meal a week to two meals a week (as recom- mended by many health professionals), an additional 4 to 6 mmt per year will be needed (NOAA, 2006; Nesheim and Yaktine, 2007). Clearly, if the U.S. is to increase its seafood self sufficiency through aquaculture and fisheries enhancement, positive action and significant investment should begin now. U.S. Aquaculture Today U.S. aquaculture produces a wide range of species in fresh, brackish and salt water environments. Annual production is dominated by species grown in fresh water, led by channel catfish at 300,000 mt. Other prominent species include crawfish at 33,500 mt; rainbow trout at 23,000 mt and tilapia at 9,000 mt. Fully 92% of total U.S. aquaculture production today is carried out in fresh water and to a large extent in inland locations away from the coasts (NASS, 2006; NOAA, 2007c). The balance of seafood production is carried out in brackish and salt water environments along the coasts and in protected, nearshore bays and estuaries. Important marine aquaculture species include salmon at 16,300 mt, oysters at 9,200 mt, hard clams at 5,000 mt, and marine shrimp at 4,600 mt. In total, marine aquaculture provides over 42,000 mt of seafood to domestic markets with a farm gate value of about $200 million (MATF, 2007). Examination of production acreage and number of farms dedicated to aquaculture farming in 1998 and 2005 leads to several conclusions on trends and where future U.S. development efforts should be focused. Freshwater acreage for all states expanded a meager 14% in seven years, from 133,000 hectares to 152,000 hectares, with the number of farms declining from 3,252 to 3,127 (NASS, 2000; NASS, 2006). Future increases in production of freshwater species will largely come from intensifying production on existing farms through investment in technology and energy efficient solutions, rather than site expansions and building of new farms, due primarily to increasing competition for land and water resources. In the same period, salt water acreage in coastal and nearshore areas (including that leased from public and private owners) increased 410%, from 26,000 hectares to Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 17 136,000 hectares. The number of farms grew from 815 to 1,203 (NASS, 2000; NASS, 2006). Expansion of marine aquaculture in coastal and offshore locations offers the greatest potential for rapidly expanding U.S. domestic seafood supplies (Nash, 2004; NOAA, 2006). This point is underscored by a recent study that demonstrates the possibility of increasing annual domestic aquaculture production from all sources by 1 mmt by 2025 and of that volume fully 590,000 mt could come from marine finfish and 245,000 mt from marine mollusk production. Indeed, in the near-term using existing technologies, mollusk culture in nearshore waters will likely be a major contributor to industry expansion (Nash, 2004). The Two-Pronged Aquaculture Solution The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 defined aquaculture as, “The propagation and rearing of aquatic organisms in controlled or selected environments for any commercial, recreational or public purpose.” Public policy implications of this definition include broad use of aquaculture to enhance both capture and culture fisheries. Technology implications focus on control of some portion of the entire life cycle of an aquatic species for commercial gain or broader public benefit. Controlled production allows predictability of supply for the seed stock from hatcheries (e.g., fish fingerlings or oyster and clam spat) and maximum farmer control of the timing, size and form of the final product for the market place. Rapid U.S. marine aquaculture expansion offers a “two-pronged” solution to addressing the emerging national priority of increasing domestic supplies of quality seafood products: 1)Expansion of existing commercial marine aquaculture production and addition of new farms in state and federal marine waters of the coastal states, island states and territories with the interest and resources to support the industry, and 2)Utilization of marine aquaculture hatchery technologies for production of seed stock for economically important coastal and ocean species to release to the wild to rebuild and enhance both recreational and commercial fisheries. 18 Marine Technology Society Journal Today commercial marine aquaculture farming accounts for about 8% of the total cultured supply and overall produces only 1.5% of all U.S. domestic seafood (NOAA, 2007c). There is significant potential to further utilize state marine waters—defined generally as out to 5.56 kilometers from shore—to increase production through establishment of new farming activities or expansion of existing farms, e.g., salmon, oyster and clam operations (Nash, 2004). But, the greatest potential for new, largescale farm expansion is in federal ocean waters—defined generally as 5.56 kilometers to 370.4 kilometers from shore—due primarily to less competition for space and resources from other uses and favorable environmental conditions supportive of sustainably managing largescale production systems (NOAA, 2006; Watson and Drumm, 2007). This expanse is known as the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and encompasses 880 million hectares of ocean that is controlled by the federal government. Currently there are no commercial aquaculture operations in and no permitting/ leasing regime for federal waters, yet the potential for rapid expansion of open ocean aquaculture there is enormous (Cicin-Sain et al., 2001, 2005). Further, successful commercial aquaculture permitting/leasing programs for marine resources exist in a number of states that could be utilized as “first approximation” models, e.g., Hawaii has had a working permitting, leasing and monitoring program for seven years (Cates et al., 2001; Corbin, 2007). In addition to the strong societal benefit of increasing the availability and variety of seafood for U.S. consumers, commercial farming can foster economic development and jobs in coastal communities. For example, in 1995 an aquaculture development program begun by Florida retrained 400 fishermen, whose businesses were shut down by State gear regulations, to be hard clam farmers. The State helped these individuals learn the hatchery technology and lease 1,600 acres of State ocean bottom for growing out clams that currently are valued at $34 million dollars annually— making Florida a leading producer of clams (Philippakos et al., 2001). Stocking of freshwater lakes and rivers from public and private hatcheries is the cornerstone of the multi-billion dollar U.S. recre- ational fishing industry. Expenditures from marine anglers alone have been estimated at $30.5 billion annually (Steinback et al., 2004). Tremendous potential exists to enhance depleted coastal recreational and commercial fisheries around the country, using the same marine hatchery technologies that support development of commercial farming by producing large numbers of seed stock (Blankenship and Leber, 1995). While government hatchery production and stocking of salmonids and bivalve clams and oysters in coastal estuaries have been going on for more than 100 years with positive results (Stickney, 1996), stocking of marine gamefish and commercial species is just beginning in such concerned states as Florida (Tringali et al., 2006). A concrete example of the potential impact of enhancing and rebuilding coastal fish populations may be found in Alaska, with its multi-million dollar salmon industry. Modern salmon hatcheries were developed in response to record low wild-stock runs in the 1960s and 70s and now make an important complement to commercial and recreational fisheries dependent on these resources. Statewide, 33 production hatcheries have released 1.2 to 1.4 billion juvenile salmon annually for the last ten years to enhance commercial and recreational fisheries, while at the same time managing and maintaining healthy wild stocks. Hatchery releases account for 14 -37% of the annual common property statewide harvest of all salmon species (Heard, 2001). Good News, Action Underway In recent years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) has undertaken a bold forward-looking effort to expand the marine aquaculture industry following the recommendations of several national commissions and President Bush’s Ocean Action Plan (PEWOC, 2003; USCOP, 2004). USDOC adopted ambitious policy objectives in 1999 that framed the pressing need and enormous potential of aquaculture technology to contribute to domestic seafood supplies. The specific objectives to be achieved by 2025 were: Increase the value of domestic aquaculture production (freshwater and marine) from $900 million annually to $5 billion. ■ Increase the number of jobs in aquaculture from 180,000 to 600,000. ■ Develop aquaculture technologies and methods to improve production, as well as safeguard the environment. ■ Double the value of non-food products and services produced by aquaculture to increase industry diversification. ■ Enhance depleted wild fisheries stocks through aquaculture, thereby increasing the value of both commercial and recreational landings and improving the health of U.S. resources. ■ Increase exports of aquaculture goods and services from $500 million to $2.5 billion annually (USDOC, 1999). National discussion of the future of U.S. fisheries and the role of aquaculture continued with the publication of the comprehensive report by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) in September of 2004. In the context of its comprehensive list of recommendations for ocean policy, Commissioners called for a lead federal agency to design and implement national policies for environmentally and economically sustainable marine aquaculture (USCOP, 2004). In rapid response to the report, the Bush Administration drafted the U.S. Ocean Action Plan in December 2004. It included clear indications that the USDOC should have primary responsibility for the management and conservation of living marine resources in the EEZ and should ensure that proposed offshore aquaculture enterprises should develop and operate in an environmentally sustainable manner that is compatible with existing uses (NOAA, 2006). In June of 2005, the Administration submitted to Congress the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005, as part of the Administration’s specific response to the aquaculture recommendations of the USCOP. Congressional action on S. 1195 stalled after several informative public hearings on the legislation were held by the Senate in early 2006. Later in 2006, NOAA prepared a brief, draft 10-year plan for the NOAA Aquaculture Program at the request of the Marine Fish■ eries Advisory Committee (MAFAC), which advises USDOC on living marine resource matters under its jurisdiction (NOAA, 2006). This widely circulated, forward-looking plan should be finalized in late 2007. The good news for supporters of rapid marine aquaculture expansion is that the Administration has made marine aquaculture development a priority (NOAA, 2007b). A new version of the bill, entitled the National Aquaculture Act of 2007, was submitted to the House in April (HR 2010) and the Senate in June (S 1609). Amendments to both bills are under discussion. The well-crafted bill represents a rethinking of the original legislation based on the comments received at the hearings from environmental, fisheries and aquaculture organizations, as well as government entities, the seafood industry and the public. If enacted, the bill will establish the legal framework for issuance of long-term operating permits and leases, enforcement, and monitoring of aquaculture operations in the EEZ and will provide the property rights essential for private investment (Anderson, 2002). More specifically the bill will: ■ Authorize the Secretary of Commerce (SOC) to issue offshore aquaculture permits. ■ Require the SOC to establish environmental requirements. ■ Require the SOC to work with other federal agencies to develop and implement a coordinated permitting process. ■ Exempt permitted offshore aquaculture from fishing regulations that restrict size, season, and harvest methods. ■ Authorize a research and development program for all types of marine aquaculture. ■ Authorize significant funding to carry out the Act and provide for enforcement (NOAA, 2007a) Furthermore, establishment of the NOAA Aquaculture Program Office in 2004 has been essential in elevating the importance of marine aquaculture in the federal government. The Office, which is being reaffirmed by the new legislation, is spearheading the Congressional effort and will serve as a critical lead agency with responsibility and accountability for industry development, if the legislation passes (Corbin and Young, 1997; NOAA, 2006). Other key federal agencies, as well as the Regional Fisheries Councils, also have important roles to play in marine aquaculture. NOAA is working closely with these federal agencies, primarily through the President’s Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, the federal coordinating committee. What Is Next? The U.S. is poised to take an important step forward in securing its future seafood supplies by establishing a national program to expand domestic marine aquaculture and authorize commercial farming in the huge expanse of the EEZ. But, there are many challenges to resolve in moving aquaculture offshore; including institutional barriers, regulatory uncertainties, environmental concerns, socio-economic questions, technical gaps, and financial considerations (USCOP, 2004; Cicin-Sain et al., 2005; Stickney et al., 2006; MATF, 2007). The following highlights significant issues for immediate action: ■ A complicated, inefficient and uncertain federal regulatory process for determining and leasing sites. ■ Additional research on existing and new candidate species: reproductive biology, feeds and nutrition, and health management. ■ Operational research on cost-effective stocking, feeding, harvesting, and processing technologies. ■ Infrastructure research and development for large-scale hatcheries, cage systems design, and mooring systems. ■ Additional research on environmental impacts (positive and negative) and ecosystem carrying capacity for maximum biomass and numbers of farms. ■ Adequate supporting laboratory and field facilities to allow timely research, development and demonstration for economically important marine species and commercial scale systems. ■ Identification and timely access to environmentally suitable coastal and open ocean sites and mechanisms to resolve multipleuse conflicts. ■ Training programs to provide the skilled labor for expansion. ■ Greater public understanding of the environmental and socio-economic cost/ Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 19 benefit implications of industry expansion (Cates et al., 2001; Bogatti and Buck, 2006; Stickney et al., 2006; NOAA, 2006). Environmental organizations highly concerned with anticipating and mitigating the potential negative impacts of fostering a new use of the EEZ generally have a more focused agenda of significant issues. These concerns include: escapes of cultured species and mixing with wild populations of the same species and others, disease and parasite management and the potential of infection of wild populations, standards for acceptable changes in the water column and substrate by ocean farm activities, and use of fish meal as a major protein source in fish feeds, thus impacting source fisheries. These groups generally advocate for greater research and technical understanding of these important risk areas before EEZ resources are subject to long-term leases for commercial aquaculture (Goldburg and Triplett, 1997; Goldburg et al., 2001; Goldburg and Naylor, 2005; MATF, 2007). In recent years there has been a modest national research and demonstration effort in offshore aquaculture to gather relevant data carried out by the University of New Hampshire (UNH), the University of Miami (UM), and the University of Hawaii/the Oceanic Institute (UH/OI), among others. These pioneering efforts, which began in the late 1990s, were largely funded by the National Marine Aquaculture Initiative, managed through the National Sea Grant Program and several other federal programs, e.g., the Advanced Technology Program. Important areas of focus have included: cage and mooring design; cage operation and demonstration; feed development and disease management; automation of operations such as stocking, inventory, feeding and harvesting; species identification; and environmental impact assessment and modeling (NOAA, 2006b). For Hawaii, this research has led to establishment of two commercial open-ocean leases (28 acres and 90 acres) in exposed state marine waters; Cates International Inc. in operation since 2001 and the first commercial open-ocean aquaculture lease in the nation and Kona Blue Water Farms in operation since 2005 and the first integrated open-ocean fish farm in the nation. Both companies have plans to expand in 2008 (State of 20 Marine Technology Society Journal Hawaii, 2006). In addition, another cage farm, Snapperfarm Inc, has been started off Puerto Rico (NOAA, 2006b). There are many complex issues as the country contemplates offshore aquaculture, but are U.S. interests currently among the technology leaders or is the world competition way ahead? In hatchery technology used to produce seed stock for mollusks, U.S. producers of certified stock are recognized leaders; but would-be U.S. commercial marine farmers have few native fish species that can be routinely mass produced in numbers sufficient to stock the large cages. Leading aquaculture countries in Europe and Asia have many species to choose from and working large-scale hatcheries, either integrated into farms or as stand-alone businesses (Ryan, 2004; James and Slaski, 2007). With grow-out cage technologies for openocean conditions, it is a different situation. Cage designs for sheltered waters abound internationally, but there are few proven commercial open-ocean systems available “off the shelf,” e.g., Farmocean and OceanGlobe from Norway, SADCO from Russia and the Aquapod and Sea Station from the U.S. (James and Slaski, 2007). Currently, a recognized leader in true open-ocean cage design—cages capable of de- ployment in Class 4 waters with waves of 2 to 3 meters (Ryan, 2004)—is a company from Washington State, Ocean Spar, that produces the Sea Station Cage System (Figure 1). This system is capable of operating on the surface or submerged (Figures 2 and 3). With over 100 cages deployed around the world, including 10 in Hawaii in Class 4 waters (State of Hawaii, 2006), the Sea Station cages offer a highly functional and tested design suitable for extremes in ocean conditions (including hurricanes) at locations around the world. A Long-Term Vision There is an even more compelling longterm vision for offshore aquaculture than anchoring cages in the relatively shallow depths of the EEZ. How does society make productive use through sustainable farming of the 90% of the world’s ocean space (inside and outside the mosaic of the EEZ) that does not now contribute significantly to world seafood production (UNFAO, 2007)? Technologies for farming waters thousands of meters deep in the open ocean (e.g., advanced, deep singlepoint moorings; integrated multi-trophic systems that mitigate environmental impacts through ecosystem management; and drift- FIGURE1 Sea Station Cage Systems have been operated in an exposed open ocean site 3.3 km off shore in Hawaii for 7 years by Cates International, Inc (CII). Currently, CII and Kona Blue Water Farms grow two different species of fish in 10 cages, and both have plans to expand in the near future. (Courtesy of the Oceanic Institute) FIGURE 2 References Feeding of fish in submerged cages is carried out from a mechanized, anchored barge, where pelleted feeds are periodically pumped down to stock and fish satiation is determined with the aid of remote cameras. (Courtesy of Cates International, Inc.) Anderson, J. 2002. Aquaculture and the Future: Why Fisheries Economists Should Care. Marine Resource Economics.17:133-151. Blankenship, H. L. and K. M. Leber. 1995. A Responsible Approach to Marine Stock Enhancement. In: Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic Ecosystems, H Schramm and R. Piper, eds., pp.167-175. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Borgatti, R. and E. Buck. 2006. CRS Report for Congress: Open Ocean Aquaculture. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 19 pp. FIGURE 3 Harvesting of fish from submerged cages is carried out by diver-assisted herding of market-size stock to a large airlift pump, where fish are sucked to the surface and immediately slide into an ice slurry to preserve quality. (Courtesy of Cates International, Inc.) ing or dynamically positioned free floating cage systems) are the final frontier for marine aquaculture. Currently there are no demonstrated global leaders in these technologies, though a few companies and scientists are conceptualizing various approaches (e.g., Matsuda et al. 1999; Goudey et al., 2001; Fredriksson et al, 2002; Neori et al., 2004; Forster 2006). Sustainable use of the EEZ for commercial aquaculture and development and application of the next generation of technologies to farm the deep ocean many hundreds of miles from shore are formidable challenges. To be successful, the U.S. effort needs to be a focused and well-funded, long-term program that partners with the readily available expertise and interest of the national aquaculture community and the diverse ocean knowledge found in the multi-sectored U.S. maritime industry, including oil and gas extraction, ship design and building, pipeline and cable deployment, marine instrumentation, ocean energy generation and, of course, dual-use defense applications. If these extremely able and innovative individuals and companies, which are among the best in the world, can rise to the occasion and “catch the aquaculture wave of the future,” it could change where and how the U.S. and the world obtain future seafood. Moreover, coastal maritime communities around the country could be revitalized with new employment opportunities and export businesses for cages, service boats, equipment and expertise. Maintaining the current political momentum and adopting the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007 as the law of the land is crucial to the future of U.S. seafood self-sufficiency and cannot be over-stated. Adoption will mean “the end of the beginning” for the U.S. in moving marine farming into the open ocean in a planned and sustainable manner. Functional, cost-effective, scalable technology will enable a sustainable marine aquaculture industry, and the diverse U.S. marine technology industry is up to the development challenge. Brown, L. 2004. Outgrowing the Earth: The Food Security Challenge in an Age of Falling Water Tables and Rising Temperatures. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 233 pp. Brown, L. 2006. Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 266 pp. Cates, J., J. Corbin, J. Crawford and C. Helsley. 2001. Aquaculture Beyond the Reef: A Collaboration of Private, University and State Players Move the Hawaii Industry Offshore. Sea Technol. October, 2001:1-3. Cicin-Sain,B., S. Bunsick, R. DeVoe, T. Eichenberg, J. Ewart, H. Halvorson, R. Knecht and R. Rheault. 2001. Development of a Policy Framework for Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the 3- 200 Mile US Ocean Zone. Lewes: U. of Delaware, Center for Marine Policy, 166 pp. Cicin-Sain, B., S. Bunsick, J. Corbin, M. DeVoe, T. Eichenberg, J. Ewart, T. MacDonald, R. Rayburn, R. Rheault and B. Thorne-Miller. 2005. Recommendations for an Operational Framework for Offshore Aquaculture in US Federal Waters. Lewes: U. of Delaware, Center for Marine Policy, 114 pp. Corbin, J. and L. Young. 1997. Planning, Development, and Regulation of Sustainable Aquaculture. In: Sustainable Aquaculture, J.E. Bardach, ed., pp 201-233, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 21 Corbin, J. 2007. History, Current Status, and Future of Open Ocean Aquaculture Permitting and Leasing in Hawaii. Extended abstract, Aquaculture Interchange Program, The Oceanic Program. In Press. FAO. 2002. Status of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002. Rome: UNFAO, 150 pp. Forster, J. 2006. Forster Consulting, Inc., Personal Communication. November, 2006. Fredriksson, D.W., M. R. Swift, E. Miller, K. Baldwin and B. Calikkol. 2002. Open ocean aquaculture engineering: system design and physical modeling. Mar Technol Soc J. 34:41-52. Goldburg, R. and T. Triplett. 1997. Murky waters: environmental effects of aquaculture in the United States. Washington DC: Environmental Defense Fund, 160 pp. Goldburg, R., M. Elliot and R. Naylor. 2001. Marine aquaculture in the United States: environmental impacts and policy options. Arlington, Virginia: PEW Oceans Commission, 35 pp. Marine Aquaculture Task Force. 2007. Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the Promise; Managing the Risks. Takoma Park, Md: PEW Charitable Trust, 128 pp. PEW Oceans Commission, 2003. Americas Living Oceans, Charting a Course of Change. Takoma Park, Md.: PEW Charitable Trust, 143 pp. Nash, C. 2004. Achieving policy objectives to increase the value of the seafood industry in the United States: the technical feasibility and associated constraints. Food Policy, 29:621-641. Philippakos, E., C. Adams, A. Hodges, D. Mulkey, D. Comer and L. Sturmer. 2001. Economic Impact of the Florida Cultured Hard Clam Industry. Gainesville, Fla: U. of Florida Sea Grant, 20 pp. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2000. 1997 Census of Agriculture, Census of Aquaculture (1998). Washington D.C.: US Department of Agriculture, 96 pp. NASS. 2006. Census of Aquaculture. 2005. Vol. 3, Special Studies Part 2. Washington D.C.: USDA, 263 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Fisheries of the United States, 2006. Washington D.C.: NMFS, 110 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006a. DRAFT 10-Year Plan for the NOAA Aquaculture Program. Washington D.C.: NOAA, US Dept. of Commerce, 20 pp. Goldburg, R. and R. Naylor. 2005. Future seascapes, fishing and fish farming. Front Ecol Environ. 3(1):21-28. NOAA. 2006b. Highlighting NOAA’s National Marine Aquaculture Initiative. Washington DC: NOAA, 3 pp. Goudey, C., G. Loverich, H. Kite-Powell and B.A. Costa-Pierce. 2001. Mitigating the environmental effects of mariculture through single-point moorings (SAMs) and drifting cages. ICES J Mar Sci. 58:497-503. NOAA. 2007a. Section-By-Section Analysis, National Offshore Aquaculture Act 2007. Washington D.C.: NOAA, 11 pp. Heard, W. 2001. Alaska Salmon Enhancement: A Successful Program for Hatchery and Wild Stocks. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth USJapan Meeting on Aquaculture, Ecology of Aquaculture Species and Enhancement of Stocks. pp. 149-169. Sarasota, Fla.: Mote Marine Laboratory and U. of Florida Sea Grant. James, M.A. and R. Slaski. 2006. Appraisal of the opportunity for offshore aquaculture in UK waters. Report of Project FC 0934. London, England: DEFRA and SEAFish, 119 pp. Matsuda, F., J. Szyper, P. Takahashi and J. Vadus. 1999. The ultimate ocean ranch: artificial upwelling of deep-ocean nutrients in the open sea enhances biological food productivity unencumbered by land-based aquaculture limitations. Sea Technol. August:17-26. 22 Marine Technology Society Journal NOAA. 2007b. Remarks of U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez. International Boston Seafood Show, Monday, March 12, 2007. Boston, Ma: NOAA, 4 pp. NOAA. 2007c. Quick Stats on Aquaculture. Washington D.C.: NOAA, 1 p. NOAA. 2007d. News from NOAA. Washington D. C.: NOAA, 2 pp. Neori, A., T. Chopin, M. Troell, A.H. Bushchmann, G.P. Kraemer, C. Halling, M Shpigel and C. Yarish. 2004. Integrated aquaculture: rationale, evolution, and state of the art emphasizing seaweed biofiltration in modern aquaculture. Aquaculture, 231:361-391. Nesheim, M.C. and A.L. Yaktine, eds. 2007. Seafood Choices, Balancing Benefits and Risks. Washington D C: The National Academies Press, 722 pp. Ryan, J. 2004. Farming the Deep Blue. Dublin, Ireland: Irish Sea Fisheries Board and Marine Institute, 160 pp. Silva, S. 2001. A global perspective of aquaculture in the new millennium. In: Aquaculture in the New Millennium, Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, pp. 431-459. Bangkok, Thailand: Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific and UNFAO. State of Hawaii. 2006. Implementation of Chapter 190 D, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Ocean and Submerged Lands Leasing. Honolulu, Hawaii: Department of Agriculture and Department of Land and Natural Resources, 13 pp. Steinback, S., B. Gentner and J. Castle. 2004. The Economic Importance of Marine Angler Expenditures in the United States. Washington D.C.: NOAA, 169 pp. Stickney, R. 1996. Aquaculture in the United States. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 372 pp. Stickney, R., B. Costa-Pierce, D. Baltz, M. Drawbridge, C. Grimes, S. Phillips, and L. Swan. 2006. Toward sustainable open ocean aquaculture in the United States. Fisheries, 31(12):607-610. Tringali, M., K. Leber, W. Halstead, R. McMichael, J. O’Hop, B. Winner, R. Cody, C. Young, C. Neidig, H. Wolfe, A. Forstchen and L. Barlieri. 2006. Marine Stock Enhancement in Florida: A multi-disciplinary, Stakeholder-supported, Accountability-based Approach. In: Abstracts of the Third International Symposium on Stock Enhancement and Sea Ranching. Seattle: NOAA. United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. 2006. State of World Aquaculture: 2006. Rome: UNFAO, 133 pp. UNFAO. 2007. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: 2006. Rome: UNFAO, 63 pp. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Washington D.C.: USCOP, 610 pp. USDOC. 1999. Aquaculture Policy. Washington D.C.: USDOC, 2 pp. Watson, L. and A. Drumm, eds. 2007. Offshore Aquaculture Development in Ireland, Next Steps. Dublin, Ireland: Board Iascaigh Mhara and Marine Institute, 35 pp. Weeks, J. 2007. Fish Farming, Is it safe for humans and the environment? CQ Researcher 17(27):625-648. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 23 PAPER Marine Biotechnology: Realizing the Potential AUTHORS ABSTRACT Shirley A. Pomponi Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution Marine biotechnology is an applied science, the goal of which is to develop goods and services from marine organisms and processes. The new wave of marine biotechnology research began in the early 1980s and includes some significant success stories. A new drug to manage pain is commercially available, and a new cancer drug has been recommended for approval, the first from a fish-eating snail and the second from a mangrove tunicate. Enzymes from hydrothermal vent microbes are routinely used in PCR reactions, and marine-derived molecular probes are helping understand the molecular basis of disease processes. Advances in aquaculture biotechnology have resulted in more efficient production of finfish and shellfish for human consumption, and polyunsaturated fatty acids from marine microalgae are used as nutritional supplements for adults and infants. Rapid diagnostic tools have been developed to monitor toxins in the environment and in seafood, and genetic fingerprinting techniques are helping to control illegal trade of threatened marine species. In the future, multidisciplinary programs in oceans and human health should focus not only on microbial pathogens and harmful algal bloom toxins but also on discovery of new chemicals to prevent or treat human diseases. And the development of biological and biochemical sensors to detect pathogens, contaminants, and toxins and to monitor human and environmental health indicators in the marine environment should be a very high priority in the establishment of U.S. coastal ocean observing systems. Daniel G. Baden University of North Carolina-Wilmington Yonathan Zohar University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute Introduction M arine biotechnology is an applied science, the goal of which is to develop “products”, i.e., goods and services, from marine organisms and processes. Marine-derived bioproducts and their biomedical applications are perhaps the best known because of their impact on human health, e.g., drugs to treat diseases such as cancer, molecular probes and fine chemicals to study disease processes, nutritional supplements, cosmetic additives, and diagnostic procedures to detect red tides or determine the quality of seafood. Important discoveries have also been applied to resource management, protection of threatened species, aquaculture and habitat restoration. Human-driven erosion of marine biodiversity has recently been projected to lead to the collapse of all currently fished species by 2048 (Worm et al., 2006). Wild fisheries stocks can not meet the ever-increasing global demand for seafood. Rather, the growing global gap between supply and demand of fishery products must be filled through economically feasible and environmentally sustainable marine aquaculture. The value of the oceans as a source of marine-derived bioproducts has been well documented by the National Research Council (1999, 2000, 2002), the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004), and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) (2007). Each of these reports provides specific recommendations for applying marine biotechnology to enhance human wellbeing and protect our environment. 24 Marine Technology Society Journal This report is divided into a review of marine bioproducts (pharmaceuticals, molecular probes, fine chemicals, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic additives), environmental monitoring and resource management, and aquaculture, as well as a discussion of opportunities and challenges. Marine Bioproducts Pharmaceuticals Colwell (2002) stated that “marine biotechnology is poised on the edge of a period of tremendous potential—potential for discovery, potential for development, potential for design.” At that time, she considered the field of marine biotechnology “still in the realm of the future.” The new wave of marine-derived pharmaceuticals was, in 2002, still in the “potential” category, although one anticancer drug and several antiviral drugs of marine origin have actually been clinically available for decades. In the early 1950s, Werner Bergmann extracted novel nucleosides from a shallow water sponge—Cryptotethya crypta—collected off the coast of Florida (Bergman and Burke, 1955). These chemicals were discovered to have antiviral properties, which led to the synthesis and development of several important antiviral and anticancer drugs: AZT (zidovudine, Retrovir®) was the first drug licensed for the treatment of HIV infection; Acyclovir (Zovirax®) is another antiviral commonly prescribed for treating herpes infections; Ara-A (Vidarabine®) is in clinical use as an antiviral (most often as an ophthalmic ointment); and a related compound, Ara-C (Cytosar-U®), was approved for use in the treatment of certain leukemias in 1969, making it the first such approved marine-derived drug for use in cancer chemotherapy (www.marinebiotech.org). In general, it takes more than a decade and several hundred million dollars to develop a drug. For every drug that is approved by the FDA, there are hundreds of other drug candidates that are abandoned because they are found to be ineffective or unsafe. The emphasis in marine natural products drug discovery research and development in the U.S. has been on anticancer compounds, due in large part to the availability of funding to support marine-derived cancer drug discovery. The National Cancer Institute has led this effort through its pro- grams to support both single-investigator and multi-institutional marine natural products cancer drug discovery research, for example, through its National Cooperative Drug Discovery Groups, as well as multi-agency funded programs, such as the Interdisciplinary Cooperative Biodiversity Groups. As a result, several marine-derived compounds are in preclinical or clinical trials for the treatment of cancer (Newman and Cragg, 2004). Considering that the field of marine natural product drug discovery has had focus—and funding—in the U.S. for less than 25 years and that it can take more than a decade to develop a drug once it is discovered to have therapeutic potential, it is remarkable that two marine-derived drug-candidates have transitioned from “potential” to “realized” in that time period: one for the treatment of cancer (Yondelis®) and one for pain management (Prialt®). Yondelis® (trabectedin, ecteinascidin 743) (PharmaMar S.A., Madrid, Spain) is an antitumor alkaloid derived from the mangrove tunicate Ecteinascidia turbinata (Wright et al., 1990; Rinehart et al., 1990; Erba et al., 2001). After successful clinical trials, the drug received a positive opinion from the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) in July 2007 for the treatment of metastatic or advanced soft tissue sarcoma. The next step is for the European Commission to grant marketing authorization of Yondelis®. It is anticipated that the drug will be available in Europe by the end of 2007. Prialt® (ziconotide) (Elan Corporation) is made by chemical synthesis in a laboratory but is chemically, physically, and biologically identical to a synthetic derivative of a peptide that was extracted from the venom of the cone snail Conus magus (Olivera et al., 1985). Prialt® acts by short-circuiting the nerves that normally transmit pain signals. Because it is so precise, it offers advantages over opioid drugs, such as morphine, that have side-effects such as sedation and depressed respiration—and it appears to be significantly more effective than morphine (Livett et al., 2004). Prialt® was approved in late 2004 in the U.S. for the management of chronic pain in a select subset of patients, i.e., those who require intrathecal analgesia (i.e., delivered directly into the space around the spinal cord allowing chronic pain to be managed while still allowing the patient to maintain body muscle control). The target population for the drug is patients suffering from severe chronic pain, e.g., patients with phantom limb pain, cancer and/or AIDS. The recent success of two clinically available, marine-derived drugs confirms the “potential” of marine biotechnology for drug discovery and development. Although there continues to be a major effort by pharmaceutical companies in the design of synthetic chemicals for drug discovery, marine natural products still provide unusual and unique chemical structures upon which molecular modeling and chemical synthesis of new drugs can be based. Thus, research and development of marinederived pharmaceuticals continues to be a major focus of marine biotechnology in the U.S. Some of the continued effort in drug discovery surrounds a novel “disruptive” approach to drug discovery (Christensen, 1997), where “action-reaction” scenarios are postulated. In the case of unicellular organisms that are traditionally characterized as “toxic,” scientists are exploring the resistance characteristics of the organisms and are discovering that some produce the antitoxin as well as toxin! A casein-point is the discovery of brevenal from Florida red tide, where this natural product effectively counteracts all of the effects of toxin (Bourdelais et al., 2004). Brevenal may also have therapeutic effects in the treatment of cystic fibrosis and other mucociliary diseases (Abraham et al., 2005; Bourdelais et al., 2005). The molecule was patented in 2007, with five use patents pending. Most commercially available marine-derived chemicals (for examples, see Pomponi, 2001) are those that require little, if any, regulatory approval. They fall within the categories of molecular probes (non-drug substances which can be used to probe biochemical processes in the cell), fine chemicals (such as enzymes and pigments), nutritional supplements, and cosmetics additives. Molecular Probes Molecular probes are broadly defined as non-drug substances which can be used to study the basis of important biochemical events (National Research Council, 1999). The importance of molecular probes to understand the molecular basis of diseases has often outweighed both their economic and medical value as commercial drugs, and several marine-derived compounds, discovered initially as potential therapeutics and subsequently abandoned as drug candidates for a variety of reasons (e.g., toxicity, lack of suitable patent protection to enable exclusive development) are available commercially as molecular probes. Their use as research tools often allows scientists to study the mechanisms by which other drugs act to treat or cure a disease. For example, potent marine neurotoxins, such as tetrodotoxin, saxitoxin, conotoxin, lophotoxin, brevetoxins, and ciguatoxin, have been instrumental in defining the structure and function of membrane channels which facilitate nerve transmission (Narahashi et al., 1994). Understanding the function of these neurotoxins has allowed drugs to be designed and targeted to specific sites of nerve transmission. The class of neurotoxin selected, and the ability to chemically modify specific portions of each toxin, allow drug design to create function-specific materials that regulate nerve transmission in a predictable fashion. Marine natural products are not only sources of probes for studying specific cellular proteins and enzymes, but they have also provided visual markers for proteins specified by antibodies, for cellular events mediated by calcium, and for understanding mechanisms of tissue-specific gene expression. Antibodies are an indispensable tool of molecular biology and biomedicine because they can be used to identify specific molecules. However, they must be coupled to a “reporter molecule,” usually an enzyme with a colorimetric substrate or a fluorescent compound. Phycoerythrin, a fluorescent protein isolated from red algae, is cross-linked to antibodies for use as an indicator in many immunological assays. Phycoerythrin-conjugated antibodies are a favored reagent for use in flow cytometry, a common clinical diagnostic procedure. Aequorin, a compound isolated from the bioluminescent jellyfish Aequorea victoria, has been used extensively in cell biology because it emits light in the presence of calcium. The photoprotein component of aequorin has been cloned into gene expression vectors and is used to monitor calcium in the cytoplasm and organelles of cultured cells (Badminton and Kendall, 1998). Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 25 Green fluorescent protein (GFP), also derived from the bioluminescent jellyfish A. victoria, has been cloned (Chalfie et al., 1994) and developed for use as a reporter gene in numerous studies of the regulation of gene expression. Because GFP fluoresces in living tissues, it is possible to continuously monitor gene expression. This is particularly useful in the study of cell signaling, cell differentiation and other molecular processes that are important for understanding diseases such as cancer. Several fluorescent proteins from a variety of coral species are also being developed as reporter molecules that may emit in other portions of the visible spectrum (e.g., green, red, and blue) (Carter et al., 2004). Fine Chemicals Deep-sea hydrothermal vents exhibit the most extreme range of conditions of any known aquatic environment. The area in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents is characterized by high temperatures and pressures as well as steep temperature gradients. Microorganisms from these harsh environments (“extremophiles”) provide unique enzymes. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a universal process used in molecular biology to amplify minute amounts of DNA or RNA, and requires the use of enzymes that are stable at high temperature. A marine microorganism isolated from deep sea hydrothermal vents yielded the VentR® DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs) (Mattila et al., 1991) which is used in PCR reactions common to both diagnostic procedures and gene mapping studies. Marine bacteria are also the source of many unique restriction enzymes used in the cloning of DNA, as well as novel organic solutes, e.g., thermoprotectants, osmoprotectants, and biosynthetic intermediates, not found in conventional bacteria. Pigments from marine microalgae are another high-value marine bioproduct. Xanthophylls produced by the microalga Dunaliella salina include zeaxanthin and lutein, which have antioxidant properties and are being used in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and nutritional supplements, such as vitamins. Marine microalgal pigments are 26 Marine Technology Society Journal also being used to prepare labeled biochemicals, such as fluorescently-labeled glucose and fatty acids which are used in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic research. Nutritional Supplements The nutritional fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is a naturally-occurring polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFAs) in breast milk, a predominant structural fatty acid in brain gray matter, and a key component of heart tissue. High dietary levels of DHA are believed to result in higher levels in the brain, and they have been recommended as nutritional supplements for infants, as well as to support cardiovascular health in adults. DHA is produced in large quantities by certain marine microalgal species. First developed as a product for aquaculture applications, Martek Biosciences (www.martek.com) has developed a series of products incorporating DHA (e.g., life’sDHA™) for use in foods, beverages, infant formula, and nutritional supplements (e.g., Neuromins®). Eicosatetraenoic acids (ETAs) are omega3 PUFAs in LyprinexTM (LifePlus International), a marine lipid complex from the New Zealand green-lipped mussel. The product is marketed as a nutritional supplement for the prevention of joint pain associated with inflammatory processes (such as arthritis). Cosmetics Additives Many marine-derived products (both defined extracts and pure compounds) have anti-inflammatory and analgesic (i.e., pain relief) properties (for review, see Mayer and Hamann, 2004). As a result, they are candidates as additives in cosmetic formulations, such as facial creams and sunscreens. One such class of chemical compounds is commercially available. The pseudopterosins are glycosides derived from the Caribbean soft coral Pseudopterogorgia elisabethae. Although the pseudopterosins are in advanced preclinical trials as anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs, defined extracts of the soft coral are available commercially (as Gorgonian Extract® from Lipo Chemicals, Inc.) and are used as additives in skin care products (Estée Lauder Resilience™). Environmental Monitoring and Resource Management In addition to these marine-derived biomedical products, there are several important environmental applications of marine biotechnology research. These include the discovery and use of new molecular or genetic tools to identify or characterize economically important or threatened species and to identify and monitor toxins in the environment. Genetic fingerprinting techniques have been developed to distinguish species of sharks (Shivji et al., 2002, 2005; Magnussen et al., 2007). There has been a dramatic worldwide reduction of shark populations, due in part to over-fishing (Baum et al., 2003) and illegal shark-finning practices. Genetic fingerprinting techniques are being used by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service to identify shark fins and regulate illegal trading in shark body parts. Harmful algal blooms (HABs) or “red tides” are responsible for millions of dollars in economic impacts to tourism and fisheries (Hoagland et al., 2002). They cause marine mammal mortalities as well as tens of thousands of cases of human intoxication world-wide annually. A number of diagnostic procedures have been developed to detect HAB toxins in seawater and seafood (e.g., Casper et al., 2004; Naar et al., 2002). Early in the 1980s, specific antibodies were raised against Florida’s red tide brevetoxins. Over the past 20 years, the utilization of these antibodies have been exploited to produce radioimmunoassays for detection of toxin in seafood, and the assay has been modified to an enzyme linked immunocytochemical (ELISA) format (Trainer and Baden, 1991; Naar et al., 2002) that has been instrumental in determining the qualitative and quantitative effects of brevetoxin on marine mammals (Bossart et al., 1998). This ELISA assay has also been important in tracking fish tissues contaminated with brevetoxins, incriminating brevetoxins in “ciguatera” fish poisoning in the Caribbean. This work is illustrative of the melding of marine and biomedical sciences into a combined science where technologies developed in one area are rapidly integrated into another. Understanding the chemistry of the suspect materials is essential to develop reliable and science-based testing. The brevetoxin ELISA entered review by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) in 2007 for approval as a test. Ciguatera fish poisoning has also been explored using the similar ELISA technology, although the test has not been subjected to the rigors of the AOAC. The shortcomings of the test include doubt that the chemical method used to link the toxin actually succeeded, and the mixed nature of the immunogen (Hokama et al., 1977). Ciguatera remains one of the most debilitating and long-lived of the marine toxin poisoning syndromes, and only recently have synthetic substructures of ciguatoxin been used to make antibodies (Oguri et al., 2003). This synthetic chemical-based approach, like drug discovery, will begin to yield fruitful results. ELISA tests for okadaic acid (diarrheic shellfish poisoning), domoic acid (amnesic shellfish poisoning), saxitoxin (paralytic shellfish poisoning), yessotoxin (yessotoxin shellfish poisoning), microcystin (fresh water reservoir supplies) are also available through several commercial vendors (e.g., Biosense Laboratories, Environmental Assurance Monitoring LLC, EnviroLogix, GreenWater Laboratories). Diagnostics also can utilize the radioactive forms of each of the above-referenced marine toxins and, when coupled with the biological receptor to which they bind to cause illness, can be used as assays. The radioactive form of brevetoxin, additionally, can be used to detect ciguatoxin because both ciguatoxin and brevetoxin bind to the same receptor site. Enzyme-linked or colorimetric forms of each of these toxins can also be exploited for detection purposes. Of particular importance here is to point out that the toxins (and their antidotes) are drugs from natural sources, and that they can be exploited, modified, prepared, and formulated just as can any other drug resulting from biotechnology. That they possess exquisite potency and specificity is the hallmark of a drug with blockbuster potential. Aquaculture Responding to the continuous decline in fishery harvests, aquaculture has become the world’s fastest growing sector of agricultural production, increasing nearly 60-fold during the last five decades (FAO, 2006). The application of biotechnological tools is beginning to help surmount biological impediments to the development of sustainable aquaculture and augment the predictability and performances of the farmed organisms. Understanding the molecular, physiological and endocrine basis of the reproductive cycle and early life stages of commercially important finfish led to the development of hormone-based technologies to induce consistent and predictable spawning (Zohar and Mylonas, 2001; Alok and Zohar, 2005) and of strategies to increase larval survival and performance in hatcheries (Koven et al., 2001). Probiotic approaches are used to improve juvenile health and developmental success (Austin et al., 1995; Rollo et al., 2006). Biomedical research and discovery of the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying sensing and response to environmental ions in humans (Brown et al., 1995; Baum and Harris, 1998) led to the recent commercialization of a powerful product to induce early smoltification, SuperSmolt® (MariCal), which is now used in the salmon industry world-wide. The dependency of aquaculture diets on fish meal and fish oil puts additional pressure on wild stocks (Naylor et al., 2000). Algal and plant biotechnology programs are now able to selectively tailor protein and lipid content (Robert, 2006; Harel et al., 2002) to substitute for fish meal and fish oils in aquaculture feeds, thereby reducing the adverse effect of aquaculture on wild populations as well as of contaminants in farmed fish that originate from fish meal and fish oils (Hites et al., 2004). AquaGrow® (Advanced BioNutrition Corp.) is the first such commercial formulation broadly used in shrimp aquaculture. Marine algal farming and biotechnology are now attracting growing global attention, as algae are considered a substitutive feedstock for bio-diesel and other bio-fuels (Chisti, 2007; Melis, 2002). Discovering the genetic and cellular basis of host-pathogen interactions and fish immune responses resulted in the introduction to the industry of very sensitive molecular diagnostic kits for the early detection of diseases (Bruno et al., 2007; Milne et al., 2006; Osorio and Toranzo, 2002) and in the development of highly efficient DNA vaccines (Corbeil et al., 2000; Traxler et al., 1999), significantly reducing the incident of disease in commercial shellfish and finfish operations. The use of gene transfer technologies for production of transgenic, better performing fish resulted in the development of AquaAdvantageTM (Aqua Bounty Technologies) fast growing transgenic Atlantic salmon (Fletcher et al., 2000; Devlin et al., 2001; Stokstad, 2002). Their commercial use awaits FDA approval. One of the main impediments to the expansion of marine aquaculture is its potential adverse effect on marine and coastal environments. Coastal net-pen and pond aquaculture were reported to emit nutrients and chemicals into the marine environment (Gyllenhammar and Hakanson, 2005) and to have genetic consequences on wild stocks through interbreeding with escaped animals, including future transgenic fish, ultimately leading to genetic drifts and reduced fitness (Naylor et al., 2005; McGinnity et al., 2005). Additionally, these aquaculture practices pose the risk of disease transmission from farmed to wild animals (Krkosek et al., 2005). Biotechnological approaches are used to develop fully contained mariculture systems that have no interactions with the environment and are bio-secure (Zohar et al., 2005; Van Rijn et al., 2006). Those land-based, water-recirculated operations use unique marine microbial consortia and processes to nearly eliminate the dissolved and solid waste produced by the fish, which allows for over 99% reuse of the seawater (Tal et al., 2003, 2006). Such systems are not only environmentally compatible and ecologically sustainable, but also species-generic, capable of producing high-quality marine fish anywhere (no proximity to the coast is required), and pathogen and contaminant free. Thus, these state-ofthe-art systems produce healthy and clean fish that are safe for human consumption. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 27 Marine Biotechnology: Opportunities and Challenges Marine biotechnology has already demonstrated its value in developing products and processes to enhance human well-being and environmental health. Examples include new drugs to treat cancer and manage pain, molecular sensors to detect contaminants in the environment, genetic fingerprinting techniques to conserve threatened species, and improved aquaculture methods for production of safe seafood for human consumption. A review of the literature suggests that the past two decades of marine biotechnology research have been primarily focused on the discovery of novel, marine-derived natural products with potential pharmacological activity (Faulkner, 2001). New ways of searching for materials of potential marine biotechnology importance are constantly developing. Modulation of natural product effects by chemical modification is clearly a tried and true biotechnology mechanism. Looking for additional molecules with biomedical potential in toxic organisms is relatively new. Changing harmful materials like toxins into therapeutic materials is decidedly new. All of these newer methods exploit, in part, the traditional mechanisms of drug discovery with raw materials from marine sources. Federally-funded centers for the study of oceans and human health foster the integration of marine expertise with that of biomedical expertise. It is a new frontier. Another novel application of marine biotechnology is the production of marine-derived proteins to control the nanofabrication of crystalline forms of semi-conducting materials. Morse and colleagues at the University of California, Santa Barbara (Aizenberg et al., 2005), are conducting research on proteins, genes, and molecular processes that control the nanofabrication of such natural composite materials as abalone shell and siliceous sponge spicules. Their objective is to develop new procedures for the synthesis of high-performance composites as semi-conductors and biosensors. Marine species currently account for only 36% (3.2% for finfish) of the global shellfish and finfish aquaculture production (FAO, 2006) and provide only 11.5% (1.1% for 28 Marine Technology Society Journal finfish) of all seafood products (inclusive of fishery and aquaculture). The production of marine species (especially finfish) through aquaculture must be accelerated to ease fishing pressures on marine stocks. To meet this challenge, aquaculture must become more intensive, efficient and cost-effective, while also being fully compatible with the marine and coastal environments. Strategies for habitat restoration (e.g., sea grasses, coral reefs) and stock enhancement (e.g., commercially and recreationally important fisheries) should be a natural extension of the successes achieved using marine biotechnology for aquaculture of fish and shellfish. And the development of biological and biochemical sensors to detect pathogens, contaminants, and toxins and to monitor human and environmental health indicators in the marine environment should be a very high priority in the establishment of U.S. coastal ocean observing systems. There are challenges: technical, regulatory, political, and environmental. These have been detailed in other reviews and reports (e.g., National Research Council, 2002; Pomponi, 1999, 2001) and include: ■ technical: exploring new environments and developing new platforms, tools, and tests to discover marine organisms (including microbes) and applying that knowledge to develop useful products and solve environmental problems; ■ regulatory: streamlining government regulatory requirements for drug development; ■ political: complying with regulations related to the rights of a country to its natural resources, as well as fair and equitable sharing of technologies and revenues resulting from commercialization of marine bioproducts; and ■ environmental: ensuring sustainable use of marine resources with commercial potential by developing alternatives to continued harvest of marine organisms. Finally, commercializing marine biotechnology discoveries requires stronger partnerships between academic researchers, industry, and innovative small companies. Fostering such partnerships and facilitating technology transfer are needed for marine biotechnology to achieve its full potential. References Abraham, W.A., Bourdelais, A.J., Sabater, J.R., Ahmed, A., Lee, T.A., Serebriakov, I. and Baden, D.G. 2005 Airway responses to aerosolized brevetoxins in an animal model of asthma. J Resp Crit Care Med. 171:26-34. Aizenberg, J., Weaver, J.C., Thanawala, M.S., Sundar, V.C., Morse, D.E. and Fratzi, P. 2005. Skeleton of Euplectella sp.: Structural hierarchy from the nanoscale to the macroscale. Science 309:275–278. Alok, D. and Zohar, Y. 2005. Genes for fish GnRHs and their receptors: relevance to aquaculture biotechnology. In: Fish Genetics and Aquaculture Biotechnology, eds. T.J. Pandian, C.A.Strussman, and M.P.Marian. pp.159. Enfield, New Hampshire: Science Publishers, Inc. Austin, B., Stuckey, L.F., Bertson, P.A.W., Effendi, I. and Griffith, D.R.W. 1995. A probiotic strain of Vibrio alginolyticus effective in reducing diseases caused by Aeromonas salmoniioda, Vibrio anguillarum and Vibrio ordalii. Journal of Fish Diseases 18:93-96. Badminton, M.N. and Kendall, J.M. 1998. Aequorea victoria bioluminescence moves into an exciting new era. Trends Biotechnol. 16(5):216–224. Baum, J.K., Myers, R.A., Kehler, D.G., Worm, B., Harley, S.J. and Doherty. P.A. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic. Science. 299(5605):389-392. Baum, M.A. and Harris, H.W. 1998. Recent insights into the coordinate regulation of body water and divalent mineral ion metabolism. Am J Med Sci. 316:575-580. Bergmann, W. and D.C. Burke. 1955. Contributions to the study of marine products. XXXIX. The nucleosides of sponges. III. Spongothymidine and spongouridine. J Org Chem. 20(11):1501-1507. Bossart, G.D., Baden, D.G., Ewing, R., Roberts, B. and Wright, S. 1998. Brevetoxicosis in manatees from the 1996 epizootic: gross histopathologic and immunocytochemical features. Toxicol Path. 26(2):276-282. Bourdelais, A.J., Campbell, S., Jacocks, H., Naar, J., Wright, J.L.C., Carsi, J. and Baden, D.G. 2004. Brevenal is a natural inhibitor of brevetoxin action in sodium channel binding assays. Cell Mol Neurobiology 24:553-563. Corbeil, S., LePatra, S.E., Anderson, E.D. and Kurath, G. 2000. Nanogram quantities of a DNA vaccine protect rainbow trout fry against heterologous strains of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus. Vaccine. 8:2817-2824. Hoagland, P., Anderson, D. M., Kaoru, Y. and White, A. W. 2002. The economic effects of harmful algal blooms in the United States: estimates, assessment issues, and information needs. Estuaries. 25:819–83 Bourdelais, A.J., Jacocks, H.M., Wright, J.L.C., Bigwarfe, P.M. and Baden, D.G. 2005. A new polyether ladder compound produced by the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis. J Nat Prod. 68:2-6. Devlin, R.H., Biagi, C.A., Yesaki, T.Y., Smailus, D.E. and Byatt, J.C. 2001. Growth of domesticated transgenic fish. Nature. 409: 781-782. Hokama, Y., Banner, A.H., Boylan, D.B. 1977. A radioimmunoassay for the detection of ciguatoxin. Toxicon. 15:317-325. Brown, E.M., Pollack, M.D., Seidman, C.E., Ceidman, J.G., Chou, Y.H.W., Riccardi, D. and Hebert, S.C. 1995. Calcium-ion-sensing cell-surface receptors. New Eng J Med. 333(4):234-240. Erba, E, Bergamaschi D, Bassano L., Damia, G., S. Ronzoni, S., Faircloth, G.T. and M. D’Incalci, M. 2001. Ecteinascidin-743 (ET-743), a natural marine compound, with a unique mechanism of action. Eur J Cancer. 2001(37):97-105. Bruno, D., Collet, B., Turnbull, A., Kilburn, R., Walker, A., Pendrey, D., McIntosh, A., Urquhart, K. and Taylor, G. 2007) Evaluation and development of diagnostic methods for Renibacterium salmoninarum causing bacterial kidney disease (BKD) in the UK. Aquaculture 269:114-122. Faulkner, D.J. 2001. Marine natural products. Nat Prod Rep. 18:1-49. Carter, R.W., Schmale, M.S., and Gibbs, P.D.L. 2004. Cloning of anthozoan fluorescent protein genes. Comp Biochem Phys C. 138:259–270. Fletcher, G.L., Goddard, S.V. and Hew, C.L., 2000. Current status of transgenic Atlantic salmon for aquaculture. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms. July 8-13, 2000. pp. 179-184. Saskatoon, Canada: University of Saskatchewan, University Extension Press. Casper, E.T., Paul, J.H., Smith, M.C. and Gray, M. 2004 Detection and quantification of the red tide dinoflagellate Karenia brevis by real-time nucleic acid sequence-based amplification. Appl Environ Microb. 70(8):4727–4732. Chalfie, M., Tu, G., Euskirchen, G., Ward, W.W. and Prasher, D.C. 1994. Green fluorescent protein as a marker for gene expression. Science. 263:802–805. Chisti, Y. 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv. 25: 294-306. Christensen, C. M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 225 pp. Colwell, R. 2002. Fulfilling the promise of marine biotechnology. In: Marine Biotechnology in the Twenty-First Century: Problems, Promise, and Products. National Research Council, pp. 39-44. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2006. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: FAO Press. 129 pp. Gyllenhammar, A. and Hakanson, L. 2005. Environmental consequence analyses of fish farm emissions related to different scales and exemplified by data from the Baltic - a review. Mar Environ Res. 60(2):211-243. Harel, M., Koven, W., Lein, I., Bar, Y., Behrens, P., Stubblefield, J., Zohar, Y. and Place, A.R. 2002. Advanced DHA, EPA, and ArA enrichment materials for marine aquaculture using single cell heterotrophs. Aquaculture. 213:347-362. Hites, R.A., Foran, J.A., Carpenter, D.O., Hamilton, M.C., Knuth, B.A. and Schwager, S.J. 2004. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science. 303:226-229. Koven, W., Barr, Y., Lutzky, S., Ben Atia, I., Weiss, R., Harel, M., Behrens, P. and Tandler, A. 2001. The effect of dietary arachidonic acid (20:4n-6) on growth, survival and resistance to handling stress in the larvae of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata). Aquaculture. 193:107-122. Krkosek, M., Lewis, M.A., Morton, A. Frazer, L.N. and Volpe, J.P. 2005. Epizootics of wild fish induced by farm fish. Proc Natl Acad Soc. USA 103:15506-15510. Livett, B.G., Gayler, K.R. and Khalil, Z. 2004. Drugs from the sea: conopeptides as potential therapeutics. Curr Med Chem. 11(13):1715-1723. Magnussen, J.E., Pikitch, E.K., Clarke, S.C., Nicholson, C., A. R. Hoelzel, A.R. and Shivji, M.S. 2007. Genetic tracking of basking shark products in international trade. Anim Conserv. 10(2007):199-207. Mattila, P., Korpela, J., Tenhanen, T. and Pitkanen, K. 1991. Fidelity of DNA synthesis by the Thermococcus litoralis DNA polymerase—an extremely heat stable enzyme with proofreading activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 19(18):4967-4973). Mayer, A.M.S. and Hamann, M.T. 2004. Marine pharmacology in 2000: marine compounds with antibacterial, anticoagulant, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, antimalarial, antiplatelet, antituberculosis, and antiviral activities affecting the cardiovascular, immune, and nervous systems and other miscellaneous mechanisms of action. Mar Biotechnol. 6(1):37-52. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 29 McGinnity, P., Prodohl, P., Ferguson, A., Hynes, R., Maoileidigh, N.O., Baker, N., Cotter, D., O’Hea, B., Cooke, D., Rogan, G., Taggart, J. and Cross, T. 2003. Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon. Proceedings Royal Soc. London: Biological Sciences. 270: 2443-2450. Melis, A. 2002. Green alga hydrocarbon production: progress, challenges, and prospects. Int J Hydrogen Energ. 27:1217-1228. Milne, S.A., Galachacher, S., Cash, P., Porter, A.J.R. 2006. A reliable RT-PCR-ELISA method for the detection of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) in farmed rainbow trout. J Virol Methods. 132:92-96. Naar, J., Bourdelais, A., Tomas, C., Kubanek, J., Whitney, P.L., Flewelling, L., Steidinger, K., Lancaster, J. and Baden, D.G. 2002. A competitive ELISA to detect brevetoxins from Karenia brevis (formerly Gymnodinium breve) in seawater, shellfish, and mammalian body fluid. Environ Health Perspect. 110(2):179–185. Narahashi, T., Roy, M.L. and Ginsburg, K.S. 1994. Recent advances in the study of mechanism of action of marine neurotoxins. Neurotoxicology. 15:545-554. National Research Council. 1999. From Monsoons to Microbes: Understanding the Ocean’s Role in Human Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.132 pp. National Research Council. 2000. Opportunities for Environmental Applications of Marine Biotechnology. Proceedings of the October 5-6, 1999, Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 176 pp. National Research Council. 2002. Marine Biotechnology in the Twenty-First Century: Problems, Promise, and Products. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 117 pp. 30 Marine Technology Society Journal National Science and Technology Council Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. 2007. Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for the Next Decade: an Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy. Washington, D.C. 84 pp. Rinehart, K.L., Holt, T.G., Fregeau, N.L., Stroh, J.G., Kiefer, P.A., Sun, F., Li, L.H. and Martin, D.G. 1990. Ecteinascidins 729, 743, 745, 759A, 759B, and 770: potent antitumor agents from the Caribbean tunicate Ecteinascidia turbinata. J Org Chem. 55(15):4512-4515. Naylor, R.L., Goldburg, R.J., Primavera, J.H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M.C.M., Clay, J., Folke, C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H. and Troell, M. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature. 405:1017-1024. Robert, S.S. 2006. Production of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acidcontaining oils in transgenic land plants for human and aquaculture nutrition. Mar Biotechnol. 8:103-109. Naylor, R., Hindar, K., Fleming, I.A., Goldburg, R., Williams, S., Volpe, J., Whoriskey, F., Eagle, J., Kelso, D., and Mangel, M. 2005. Fugitive salmon: Assessing the risks of escaped fish from net-pen aquaculture. BioScience 55(5):427-437. Rollo, A., Sulpizio, R., Nardi, M., Silvi, S., Orpianesi, C., Caggiano, M., Cresci, A. and Carnevali, O. 2006. Live microbial feed supplement in aquaculture for improvement of stress tolerance. Fish Physiol Biochem. 32:167-177. Newman, D.J. and Cragg, G.M. 2004. Advanced preclinical and clinical trials of natural products and related compounds from marine sources. Curr Med Chem. 11:1693-1713. Shivji, M.S, Chapman, D.D., Pikitch E.K. and Raymond, P.W. 2005 Genetic profiling reveals illegal international trade in fins of the great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias. Conserv Genet. 6:1035-1039. Oguri, H., Hirama, M., Tsumuraya, T., Fujii, I., Maruyama, M., Uehara, H. and Nagumo, Y. 2003. Synthesis-based approach toward direct sandwich immunoassay for ciguatoxin CTX3C. J Am Chem Soc. 125(25):7608-12. Olivera, B.M., Gray, W.R., Zeikus, R., McIntosh, J.M., Varga, J., Rivier, J., de Santos, V. and Cruz, L.J. 1985. Peptideneurotoxins from fish-hunting cone snails. Science. 230:1338-43. Osorio, C. and Toranzo, A.E. 2002. DNAbased diagnostics in sea farming. In: Recent Advances in Marine Biotechnology. Vol. 7: Seafood Safety and Human Health, eds. M. Fingerman and R. Nagabhushanam. pp. 253310. Plymouth, UK: Science Publishers, Inc. Pomponi, S.A. 1999. The bioprocess-technological potential of the sea. J Biotechnol. 70:5-13. Pomponi, S.A. 2001. The oceans and human health: the discovery and development of marine-derived drugs. Oceanography. 14(1):78-87. Shivji, M., Clarke, S., Pank, M., Natanson, L., Kohler N. and Stanhope, M. 2002. Genetic identification of pelagic shark body parts for conservation and trade-monitoring. Conserv Biol. 16(4):1036-1047. Stokstad, E. 2002. Engineered fish: friend or foe of the environment? Science. 297(5588):1797-1799. Tal, Y., Schreier, S.B., Watts, J.E. Sowers, K.A. and Schreier, H.J. 2003. Characterization of the biofilter microbial community associated with a closed recirculated aquaculture system. Aquaculture. 215:187-202. Tal, Y., Watts, J.E.M. and Schreier, H.J. 2006. Anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing (Anammox) bacteria and related activity in fixed-film biofilters of a marine recirculating aquaculture system. Appl Environ Microbiol. 72:2896-2904. Trainer, V.L. and Baden, D.G. 1991. An enzyme immunoassay for the detection of Florida red tide brevetoxins. Toxicon. 29:13871394. Traxler, G.S., Anderson, E., LaPetra, S.E., Richard, J., Shewmaker, B. and Kurath, G. 1999. Naked DNA vaccination of Atlantic salmon, Salar salar against IHNV. Dis Aquat Organ. 38:183-190. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, D.C. 522 pp. Van Rijn, J., Tal, Y. and Schreier, H.J. 2006. Denitrification in recirculating systems: theory and applications. Aquacult Eng. 34(3):364-376. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. and Watson, R. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science. 314:787-790. Wright, A. E., Forleo, D.A., Gunawardana, G.P., Gunasekera, S.P., Koehn, F.E., and McConnell, O.J. 1990. Antitumor tetrahydroisoquinoline alkaloids from the colonial ascidian Ecteinascidia turbinata. J Org Chem. 55(15):4508-4512. Zohar, Y. and Mylonas, C.C. 2001. Endocrine manipulations of spawning in farmed fish: from hormones to genes. Aquaculture. 197:99-136. Zohar, Y., Tal, Y., Schreier, H., Steven, C., Stubblefield, J. and Place, A.R. 2005. Commercially feasible urban recirculating aquaculture: addressing the marine sector. In: Urban Aquaculture. pp. 159-172. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 31 PAPER Offshore Wind Electricity: A Viable Energy Option for the Coastal United States AUTHOR ABSTRACT Walt Musial National Wind Technology Center National Renewable Energy Laboratory U.S. offshore wind energy resources are abundant, indigenous, and broadly dispersed among the most expensive and highly constrained electricity load centers. Economic capacity expansion models developed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory show that offshore wind energy can compete in future U.S. electric energy markets without major changes in the market variables or revolutionary technological breakthroughs. However, significant research, development, and deployment will be needed to bring the current technology through a course of cost reductions. To maximize the resource potential, these reductions need to be made along parallel technology paths that will expand the available resource by allowing wind turbines to be installed in deep water. Analysis shows that incremental technology improvements leading to moderate cost reductions, and reasonable increases in the cost of conventional energy will help offshore wind achieve cost competitiveness by 2030 and become a major contributor to the energy supply of the United States. This paper describes a wide range of technical research and development that can reduce costs and improve technology for deep water deployment. Background D uring the past two decades, landbased wind energy technology has seen a tenfold reduction in cost and is now competitive with fossil and nuclear fuels for electric power generation in many areas of the United States. Installed U.S. wind capacity grew from about 1,800 megawatts (MW) in 1990 to 12,634 MW at the end of June 2007, and is expected to grow to 14,000 MW by the end of 2007 (American Wind, 2007). In January 2006, President Bush recognized wind energy as part of his advanced energy initiative and acknowledged that it has the potential to meet 20% of the electricity needs of the United States (White House, 2006). For this to happen, it appears that the cost of land-based wind energy needs to be lowered, since wind development booms historically have depended on the existence of the production tax credit (PTC) for renewable energy sources. A decade ago, wind was economical in the United States at only the windiest sites (those averaging 7.4 meters per second [m/s] at 10 meters [m] or higher). The cost of wind energy was brought down further through sustained technology innovations that have made wind viable over a wider range of sites. Further innovations are still needed to make wind fully competitive in remote areas far from load centers and at marginal wind sites. The full extent of the vast land-based resource is limited by transmission line access and capacity, which makes transport of electricity from the windiest areas quite difficult (Piwko et al., 2005). These efforts to increase the marketability of land-based wind must continue, but the full domestic wind electricity potential 32 Marine Technology Society Journal cannot be realized without a broader target that includes the wind resources over the oceans. This was first recognized by Heronemus in 1972 (Heronemus, 1972) and later by Rogers (Rogers et al., 2000) and Smith (Smith and Hagerman, 2001). U.S. offshore wind energy has the potential to become a major contributor to the domestic energy supply because it can compete in many highly populated coastal energy markets where landbased wind energy is generally not viable. U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Resource One of the most attractive aspects of offshore wind is that it is not resource-limited in many high-energy-consuming areas of the United States. The U.S. offshore wind resources were recently recalculated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). These updates fill in many of the gaps that were present in earlier studies (Musial and Butterfield, 2004). These new FIGURE 1 Offshore wind resource by water depth for wind classes 5 or above in Giga Watts (GW). FIGURE 2 estimates include all the wind resource in the 48 contiguous United States and Hawaii. The major parameters of the study included the wind resource in terms of potential installed nameplate capacity, bathymetry, distance from shore (according to administrative jurisdictional boundaries), and wind class. The wind energy resource potential estimates are generated from mesoscale wind models. Mesoscale weather prediction models are used to determine the wind resource potential over wide geographic areas. These models use inputs from national weather prediction models to determine the average wind speeds and directions at various heights above the surface on monthly and daily timescales. This methodology has been validated extensively for land-based applications in the United States against actual anemometer data. Geographic information system (GIS) technology was used to combine each parameter and derive state and regional estimates of offshore wind potential. Figure 1 shows the available resource for Class 5 winds or greater, by water depth. These resources give the wind turbine nameplate capacity that could be installed assuming 5 MW of wind on every 1 square kilometer (km2) of windy area. As shown, significant Class 5 or greater wind resources are available in each region in different depth categories. Because higher wind regimes will be required offshore to achieve favorable economics, Class 5 wind—as opposed to Class 3 on land—was chosen as the offshore resource cutoff, although lower wind regimes may ul- Potential electricity supply from shallow water offshore wind as a percentage of electric energy used by state. timately prove to be feasible in some energyconstrained coastal areas. Table 1 defines the wind classes and gives a reference for how much energy could be produced by a typical turbine operating over this range of wind speed classes, using Class 4 as a reference typical for a land-based installation. Figure 1 shows that nearly 430 gigawatts (GW) of wind capacity potential occur in the shallow depth category (0 to 30 m) for the conterminous United States, including all areas from 0 to 50 nautical miles offshore. Expanding the depth range to 60 m increases the total offshore wind resource to more than 970 GW. The next step (deep water) expands the range to a 900-m depth, which brings TABLE 1 Energy Production by Wind Speed Class Average Annual Wind Speed at 50 m (m/s) Wind Class Relative to Class 4 site* Change in Energy Production 5.6–6.4 2 −34% 6.4–7.0 3 −15% 7.0–7.5 4 0 7.5–8.0 5 +13% 8.0–8.8 6 +29% 8.8–9.5 7 +45% *Relative change in energy production was computed using the NREL 3-MW reference wind turbine parameters, varying only the annual average wind speed. Actual turbine performance could be optimized for site-specific design conditions (Fingersh et al., 2006). the total U.S. offshore wind resource to more than 2,500 GW. All windy areas were considered for this study, and no specific exclusions were applied to the offshore resource potential. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of specific competing uses, such as visual concerns, shipping lanes, and fisheries. Such studies have been conducted for theUnited Kingdom (UK Department, 2007), Germany (Bundesamt, 2007a), and Delaware (Dhanju et al., 2006), but a full description of the methodology is beyond the scope of this report. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Agency shows that the 28 states in the contiguous 48 states with coastal boundaries use 78% of the nation’s electricity—2,769 Terawatt-hours [TWh] of 3,548 TWh consumed nationally in 2004 (Energy Information, 2006). Of these 28 coastal states, only 6 have a significant land-based wind energy resource. However, if shallow water wind resources over water less than 30-m are considered, 26 of the 28 states would have the wind resources to meet at least 20% of their electricity needs; many states would have sufficient offshore wind resources to meet 100% of their electricity needs (see Figure 2). The offshore wind resource dwarfs landbased wind options in most states if deeper Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 33 water wind resources are included. From an energy security standpoint, the offshore wind resource is the best indigenous energy source capable of making a significant energy contribution in many coastal states. Although local energy production may not be the primary driver for many congested, transmission-constrained regions, offshore wind can supplement energy growth and dwindling fossil supplies without building new transmission on land. Nineteen offshore wind projects now operate in Europe with an installed capacity of 900 MW. All commercial installations are in water shallower than 22 m, with the exception of a 10-MW demonstration project that has just been completed in water depths of 45 m off the coast of Scotland (MacAskill, 2005). Although some projects have been hampered by construction overruns and higher-than-expected maintenance, projections show strong growth in many European Union markets. For example, estimated growth in the United Kingdom is for 8,000 MW of new offshore wind by 2015. Similarly, German offshore development is expected to be 5,600 MW by 2014 (British Wind, 2007; Bundesamt, 2007b). In addition, the European Wind Energy Association has recently announced long-range plans for 150,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030 (European Wind, 2007). In the United States, approximately 10 offshore projects are being considered. Proposed locations span state and federal waters and total more than 2,000 MW. Two of the proposals submitted permits before the Minerals Management Service (MMS) outer continental shelf (OCS) alternative use authority was established by the 2005 Energy Policy Act (Minerals Management, 2007) and are being considered in parallel to the MMS rulemaking. All other projects in federal waters are on hold pending a new regulatory framework at MMS that is due to be completed in 2007. At least one 150-MW project in Texas state waters has already received state approval inside the MMS jurisdictional boundary. Several other projects in state waters are also moving forward through similar processes under a combination of state and federal authority. 34 Marine Technology Society Journal Description of Current Technology A typical shallow water offshore wind turbine today is essentially a marinized version of the standard land-based turbine, with some system redesigns to account for ocean conditions. These modifications include structural upgrades to the tower to address the added loading from waves, pressurized nacelles and environmental controls to prevent corrosive sea air from degrading critical drivetrain and electrical components, and personnel access platforms to facilitate maintenance and provide emergency shelter. Offshore turbines must have corrosion protection systems at the sea interface and high-grade marine coatings on most exterior components. For marine navigational safety, turbine arrays are equipped with warning lights, vivid markers on tower bases, and fog signals. To minimize expensive servicing, offshore turbines may be equipped with enhanced condition-monitoring systems, automatic bearing lubrication systems, on-board service cranes, and oil temperature regulation systems, all of which exceed the standard for land-based designs. Lightning protection is mandatory for landbased and offshore systems. The major portion of the turbines’ nacelle covers and towers are painted light blue or gray to minimize their visual impact, especially at long distances. Today’s offshore turbines range from 2 to 5 MW and are typically represented by architectures that are made up of a three-bladed horizontal-axis upwind rotor, nominally 80 m to 126 m in diameter. Tip speeds of offshore turbines (80 m/s or greater) are typically higher than those of land-based turbines. The drivetrain topology consists of a modular, three-stage, hybrid planetary helical gearbox that steps up to generator speeds of 1,000 to 1,800 revolutions per minute, and generally runs with variable speed torque control; however, direct-drive generators may prove to be a viable alternative. Towers are shorter offshore than on land because wind shear profiles are more gradual, reducing the energy capture gains sought with increased height. The offshore substructure system differs most substantially from land-based turbines. The most common offshore technology is deployed in arrays that use monopiles— large steel tubes with wall thickness of up to 60 millimeters and diameters of 6 m—at water depths of about 20 m. The embedment depth varies with soil type, but a typical installation requires pile embedment 25 to 30 m below the mud line, extending above the water line, where a transition piece with a flange to fasten to the tower is leveled and grouted on. The monopile foundation requires a special class of installation equipment for driving the pile into the seabed and lifting the turbine and tower into place. Infrastructure mobilization and logistical support for a large offshore windfarm are significant portions of the system cost. The wind turbines are arranged in arrays that take advantage of the measured prevailing wind conditions at the site. Turbine spacing is chosen to minimize aggregate power plant power losses, interior plant turbulence, and the cost of cabling between turbines just as land-based windfarms do, except that water depth presents a siting obstacle just as rough terrain does on land. The windfarm power grid connects the output from each turbine, where the generator and the power electronics voltage of 690 V is stepped up with turbine transformers (can be dry air cooled) to a distribution voltage of about 34 kilovolts (kV). The distribution system collects the power from each turbine at an electric service platform that provides a common electrical interconnection for all the turbines in the array and serves as a substation where the outputs of multiple collection cables are combined, brought into phase. For larger projects, the voltage would be stepped up to about 138 kV for transmission to a land-based substation that is connected to the onshore grid. The electric service platform also provides a central service facility for the windfarm and may include a helicopter landing pad, windfarm control room and supervisory control and data acquisition monitoring system, crane, rescue boat, communication station, firefighting equipment, emergency diesel backup generators, and staff and service facilities, including emergency temporary living quarters. Power is transmitted from the electric service platform to shore through a number of buried high-voltage subsea cables, where a shore-based interconnection point sends the power to the grid. The voltage may need to be increased again onshore to, nominally, 345 kV for offshore power plants larger than 500 MW (Green, 2007). Economic Competitiveness of Offshore Wind Today, offshore wind may be able to compete in niche U.S. utility markets with a federal PTC combined with other incentives, such as state renewable portfolio standards, state-sponsored system benefits funds, high local energy prices, pollution control incentives, or other statesponsored incentives. This is evidenced by over 2000 MW of offshore wind projects that are currently proposed in the United States. The key question, however, is whether offshore wind can make a major long-term impact in the energy mix. The answer requires a significant amount of analysis to examine the impact that future cost reductions and other market dynamics could have in expanding the offshore capacity in the United States. An economic computer model developed at NREL for DOE was used to conduct these analyses, which examined the entire U.S. electricity grid. The primary tool is the Wind Deployment Systems (WinDS) model, developed by Short and others (Short et al., 2003). WinDS is a multi-regional, multitime-period, GIS and linear programming model of capacity expansion in the electricity sector of the United States. WinDS is designed to address the principal market issues, including access to and cost of transmission and the variability of wind power that are related to the penetration of wind energy technologies into the electricity sector. Although the WinDS model does account for the cost of adding new transmission and the intermittency impacts at high penetration levels, it does not explore potential barriers related to transmission construction lead time or windfarm permitting and site selection other than via typical resource exclusions. It also does not look beyond the geographical borders at Canada or Mexico to evaluate the impacts of wind electricity export or import. WinDS models aggregate land-based and distributed wind technologies into one category, as there are no tools that can separate the two. WinDS treats offshore wind separately, and specific cost models have been developed to analyze these installations. Two assessments are described here. The first one is a study known as the 20% Wind Vision, conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Department of Energy, the American Wind Energy Association, and Black & Veatch, which demonstrated that it is technically feasible to provide 20% of the Nation’s electricity from wind energy by 2030, with a significant portion coming from offshore wind (National Renewable, 2007). The second assessment looked at specific input assumptions that were found to correlate with high offshore wind energy generation expansion rates (Short and Sullivan, 2007). The 20% Wind Vision study relied upon the WinDS model (Short et al., 2003) to simulate electricity generation capacity expansion through 2030. The wind energy contribution in each year was specified in order to approximate industry growth that expands rapidly in the next 8-10 years and reaches a relatively constant level of annual installations that could theoretically be maintained beyond 2030. Assumptions regarding the cost and performance of wind technology today through 2030 include capital cost reductions of 12.5% for offshore wind technology (from $2400/kW in 2006 dollars excluding construction financing, 10% for land-based wind technology from $1650/kW in 2006 dollars excluding construction financing) and an average of 15% improvement in performance over all wind classes for both land-based and offshore wind technology. Conventional generation technology cost and performance projections were also assumed (National Renewable, 2007). The study assumed that operation and expansion of the U.S. electric transmission system transformed to include large, regional markets for wind energy and new transmission capacity to move wind energy from isolated, windy areas to load centers. Regional variations in cost of generation technology and new transmission lines were estimated. Wind technology capital costs are increased as a function of population density; therefore an additional 20% was added to the capital cost of plants sited in the Northeast. These cost variations reflect the regional costs of actual wind projects installed in 2006 (Wiser and Bolinger, 2006). Regional transmission cost variations were developed by an AWEA expert panel and include an additional 40% in New England and New York, 30% in PJM East (New Jersey and Delaware), 20% in PJM West (Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, part of Illinois, Indiana, and Virginia), and 20% in California. The base cost of new transmission lines is $1600/MWmile. These regional costs were intended to reflect real effects due to population and experience of public resistance to siting generation technology or transmission lines. The scenario defined for the 20% Wind Vision requires over 300 GW of wind generation capacity by 2030 in order to produce over 1200 TWh/year, 20% of the projected U.S. electricity demand (see Figure 3). FIGURE 3 Cummulative wind generation capacity associated with 20% Wind Vision (National Renewable, 2007). Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 35 Of this capacity, 54 GW, or 18%, would be from offshore wind resources primarily off the coast of the Northeast states. However, in the latter years of the scenario, offshore technology is installed near West coast states as well as Southeast states. Because the energy generation from wind technology is prescribed in each simulation period to create this scenario, the cost-optimization features of the WinDS model are competing the landbased wind technology against the offshore wind technology to meet the specified annual energy generation target. Additional studies were conducted beyond the 20% Wind Vision under different technology development, cost, and policy scenarios (Short and Sullivan, 2007). These studies showed that offshore wind will be built in significant amounts if gas prices rise at an annual rate of 3% and if restrictions are placed on the construction of new transmission and fossil generation facilities in highly populated, coastal areas. Both of these assumptions seem reasonably plausible based on past energy price volatility and increasingly poor public acceptance of new transmission line construction. Under this scenario, WinDS predicts that 78GW of offshore wind will be built in exactly the regions where the coastal restrictions are imposed. These scenarios testify that offshore wind could be used to meet new loads in locations where siting restrictions on new onshore power plants and transmission are severe, such as coastal metropolitan areas. In these locations, offshore wind could be competitive with combined cycle natural gas plants if gas prices increase significantly from EIA projections (U.S. Department, 2006). There remain several other scenarios to investigate that might also spur offshore wind installations. Primary among these would be a climate change scenario with either carbon taxes or caps. NREL is modifying the WinDS model to be able to address such scenarios. In addition, NREL is planning and making general improvements to the WinDS model that will allow it to better capture the potential of offshore wind. Such improvements are anticipated to include an updated regional structure, an improved representation of transmission, siting considerations for fossil- 36 Marine Technology Society Journal fired power plants, and recent state restrictions on the siting of both new generating plants and transmission. These analyses demonstrate that offshore wind energy can be a major contributor to the future energy mix on the U.S. electricity grid. However, significant R&D is still needed to lower capital and operating costs and increase turbine performance before significant levels of penetration can be achieved. In addition, some projects are needed in U.S. waters to begin to build the experience and infrastructure needed to make cost reduction gains through volume production and learning. Technology Development Pathways The specific technical innovations that would lead to the cost reductions needed for widespread industry expansion have not yet been fully quantified, but due to the relative infancy of offshore installations, declines of 25% to 35% are plausible. Historically, new industries, including land-based wind, have demonstrated significant cost decreases FIGURE 4 Pathways for offshore technology. through technology improvements and simple learning curve effects (Milborrow, 2003). By this same logic, offshore capital costs can be expected to decrease more on a percentage basis than those of mature land-based wind energy systems. Three logical pathways are described that represent progressive levels of complexity and development that will lead to cost reductions and greater offshore deployment potential (see Figure 4). 1. First, costs must be lowered and barriers to deployment removed for shallow water technology in water depths of 0 to 30 m. This technology has already been deployed and proven in Europe. The U.S. industry must also begin with shallow water projects to understand basic technical issues, such as structural loading from wind and wave combinations, environmental impacts, wind turbine operation and maintenance at sea, and regulatory issues, before moving into deeper waters. Offshore wind costs can be reduced in the near term by removing market barriers that make offshore wind more expensive and hinder deployment and gains that result from experience. 2. Transitional depth technology is the second path needed for depths where current technology no longer works, up to the point where floating systems are more economical. This technology deals mostly with substructures that will be adapted from offshore oil and gas practices. Transitional depths are defined as 30 m to 60 m, but 60 m is an arbitrary cut-off as the actual depth where floating systems may become more economical is not yet known. This technology will probably utilize jacket or tripod-type structures that are fixed to the sea bottom. 3. The third path is to develop technology for deep water, defined as depths between 60 m and 900 m. This technology may use floating systems, which will require a higher course of research and development (R&D) to optimize turbines that are lightweight and can survive additional tower motion on anchored, buoyant platforms. Deepwater designs would open up major areas of the outer continental shelf— where the turbines would not be visible from shore and competition with other human activities would be minimal—to wind energy development. Deepwater platforms would allow mass production of all system components and introduce a major new opportunity for cost reduction. Among the designs that are currently being investigated are tension leg platforms, spars, and barge-type platforms. These three development paths, if started simultaneously, will take progressively longer periods to reach their objectives: shallow water will mature first, followed by transitional and finally deep water wind turbines. These paths ideally should not be considered as mutually exclusive choices. There is a high degree of interdependence and they should be considered as related developments that build from a shallow water foundation of experience and knowledge to the complexities of deeper water. Technology Solutions The commercialization of offshore wind energy is hindered by many technical, regulatory, socioeconomic, and political barriers that can be mitigated through targeted short- and long-range R&D efforts. Short-term research addresses impediments that prevent the first industry projects from proceeding and that will help sharpen the focus of long-term development projects. Short-term areas are not necessarily more important than long-term research, but they are more likely to be accomplished early or are necessary precursors to later needs. Remove Barriers from First Projects One of the first priorities for offshore wind energy cost reduction should be to help the industry initiate projects so that the experience and infrastructure base may begin to unfold. One way is to develop a fair and expedient certification-approval process. MMS has been authorized to define this process for the OCS, including the structural safety standards, but research, analysis, and testing will be needed to build confidence that adequate safety is being provided, and to prevent overcaution that would raise costs unnecessarily and render projects uneconomical. This will require a complete evaluation and harmonization of existing IEC offshore wind standards and the API offshore oil and gas standards with broad participation from major stakeholders, which is currently underway. The outcome will be a synthesis of the most relevant portions of each standard, followed by a verification program through third-party monitoring of early offshore projects. Understanding environmental and siting concerns of offshore wind turbines is a crucial step toward large-scale deployment. Some of the costs associated with offshore wind can be attributed to the uncertainties with environmental and siting consequences that lead to unfounded negative perceptions (e.g., RADAR, avian impacts, tourism), which make the siting, permitting, and regulatory paths significantly more costly and add to the costs of financing and insurance. Most siting problems can be mitigated with technical solutions that would allow projects to proceed. This R&D effort should parallel near-term project development in cooperation with the project developers in the interest of building a database for future projects. Currently, the developer bears the burden of siting during the pre-permitting phase with very little official guidance. GIS land use overlays should be used to perform a geographically based survey that properly accounts for all current and future marine uses, and sensitive areas. This activity should be conducted in close cooperation with local and regional stakeholders. These studies could take into account a wide range of issues in advance of most offshore wind development, including sensitive ecosystems, avian flyways, aviation conflicts, shipping channels, military waters, fisheries, easements, and underwater relics. Develop Design Codes, Tools, and Methods The design tools that are used by the wind industry today were developed and validated for land-based turbines, and their maturity has inspired confidence in today’s wind turbines. Offshore design tools are immature by comparison. Individually, private industry would find it difficult and inefficient to use private sources to develop the needed computer codes. Historically, this has been a key role for federally funded programs. The development of accurate offshore computer codes to predict the dynamic forces and motions acting on turbines deployed at sea is essential before turbines can be reliably designed and tested. One major challenge is the ability to predict the loads and resulting dynamic responses of the coupled wind turbine and support structure when it is subjected to combined stochastic wave and wind loading. New codes must be developed that account for the simultaneous first order influences of wind and waves load spectra, which is a unique problem for offshore wind in fixed and floating substructures. Floating system analysis must be able to account for additional turbine motions as well as the dynamic characterization of mooring lines (Jonkman and Buhl, 2007). The configuration and spacing of wind turbines within an array have a marked effect on power production from the aggregate wind plant, and on each individual turbine. Uncertainties in energy production represent a large economic risk to developers, which can be mitigated by improving array models. Offshore windfarms can lose more than 10% of their energy to array effects, but improvements in array optimization siting models could deliver substantial energy payback by minimizing losses before construction. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 37 Offshore wind array performance is very sensitive to atmospheric boundary layer stability, which tends to vary significantly at a given site. Array models do a poor job of representing atmospheric stability effects and the impact of turbulence inside the wind plant, which greatly increases when stable boundary layers are present. Accurate characterization of the atmospheric boundary layer behavior and more accurate wake models will be essential for designing turbines that can withstand offshore wind plant turbulence (Barthelmie et al., 2005; Jensen and Hogedal, 2005). Windfarm design tools must be able to characterize windfarmgenerated turbulence under a wide range of conditions to optimize array layout. Wind plants installed upstream of other arrays must also take into account their effect on downstream wind plants in terms of energy capture predictions and structural loads caused by modifications of the wind characteristics. The understanding and management of “wind rights” and setback requirements will require accurate flow models, new satellite measurement techniques, broader satellite data domains, and better weather prediction tools and methods (Hasager et al., 2005) Establish Offshore Wind Technology Baseline The current technology costs and tradeoffs must be understood before a new generation of lower cost hardware can be developed. First, the relative gains in life-cycle cost must be demonstrated with an economic model that is accurate enough to evaluate the fundamental technology tradeoffs and innovations on a system level (Noppenau, 2005). A good cost model will help steer research toward the most promising opportunities. The model must be populated with accurate market cost data at the component and subcomponent levels. Another part of this problem is to develop an accurate database of the cost of offshore vessels and equipment needed for installation, inspection, maintenance, and decommissioning. Almost half the cost of an offshore substructure is for installation and logistics. The real opportunity for cost reduction cannot be determined until these infrastructure cost elements, including the costs of deploying vessels, equipment, and resources, have been quantified. 38 Marine Technology Society Journal An understanding of the economics and limitations of various fixed-bottom substructures is essential before detailed designs can be completed. This effort will require extensive technology comparison studies and a good understanding of what the offshore infrastructure can deliver. Different turbine/substructure options need to be benchmarked, and to take into account installation costs, long-term maintenance, manufacturing labor, coupled turbine loads, turbine weight, water depth, and the cost of the substructure. Also, the water depth where the economics of floating platforms are superior to fixed-bottom substructures needs to be identified. A two-year study is underway at NREL to evaluate fixedbottom foundation configuration options and costs to depths of 80 m and for turbines as large as 10 MW (Cost Study, 2006). Similarly, the remaining balance of station costs must be assessed. These areas include the electrical system, insurance and financing, turbine installation options, and siting strategies. In addition, O&M costs need to be understood to determine the balance between high reliability and service. Offshore wind can compete locally with other energy sources—including land-based wind energy—but in most coastal states these other energy sources are not indigenous and must be brought in via long distance transmission lines, which may have to be built. The costs of regional and local transmission upgrades need to be determined to assess the true value of offshore wind, which is relatively accessible to many urban load centers. At the same time, public acceptance of new transmission line construction must be evaluated for each region. This study would help identify strategically critical offshore wind areas. The characteristics of offshore wind are much more difficult to assess than those of winds over land. Current validation methods rely on 5-m elevation National Data Buoy Center data, which are insufficient to characterize the wind resources at heights above the surface where wind turbines operate. Very few offshore meteorological stations exist for the purpose of recording long-term wind resource measurements. This lack of data is a key impediment toward understanding off- shore atmospheric phenomena with sufficient confidence to determine the energy potential at a particular location using the existing methods and analytical tools. Alternative methods are needed to measure wind speed and wind shear profiles at the elevations where wind turbines operate and to extrapolate those data to characterize a given site. This will require new offshore measurement stations to characterize regional conditions. In addition, new equipment such as SODAR, LIDAR, and coastal RADAR-based systems need to be adapted to measure offshore wind from stable buoy systems or fixed bases. Some systems are under development but experience is still very limited (Antoniou et al., 2006). An R&D measurement program on commercial offshore projects will be needed to gain confidence in these systems and to reduce the dependence on traditional meteorological masts. Wind, sea surface temperatures, numerous satellite databases, and other weather data available from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Weather Service, and other government agencies can also be used to supplement the characterization of coastal and offshore wind regimes. These data will need to be applied to improve the accuracy of offshore wind maps (Manwell et al., 2005). Long-Term R&D Needs Long-term research generally requires hardware development and capital investment, or lies on a complex development path that must begin early to have mature technology ready when it is needed. Most long-term research areas relate to lowering offshore life cycle system cost. Offshore Turbine Development The offshore environment will impose additional new considerations on wind turbine designs. These include increased reliability, more efficient maintenance methods, streamlined installation methods, revised acoustics criteria, mitigation of visual impact, wave loading, extreme weather characterization, and size optimization. These will likely demand a new regimen of large-scale enabling technologies. For commercial optimization, the design requirements must be established by making measurements at sea on an operating turbine prototype and ocean monitoring station. The objectives will be to demonstrate fundamental baseline turbine and foundation technologies, to measure the true meteorological ocean environment, and to reveal issues related to permitting and potential environmental impacts. In addition, data will need to be collected to develop uniform standards for structural reliability; to establish design specification guidelines and industry-accepted safety margins; and to validate design models, codes, and assumptions (Palo, 2003). This effort should be carried out as a starting point for each pathway: shallow water, transitional depths, and deep water. Further growth in wind turbine size will largely be pushed by requirements unique to offshore turbine development and will be necessary to optimize the economics of offshore equipment and infrastructure (Risoe National, 2007). New size-enabling technologies will be required to build 5- to 10MW turbines or larger. These technologies may include lightweight composite materials and composite manufacturing, lightweight drivetrains, modular pole direct drive generators, hybrid space frame towers, and large gearbox and bearing designs that can tolerate slower speeds and large scales. Since blade gravity loads grow with the blade length, designers must seek technologies such as lightweight carbon hybrids and advanced manufacturing techniques that offer higher material performance that will suspend the scaling laws that want to push weight beyond a practical limit as turbines get larger. The costs of control systems and sensors that monitor and diagnose turbine status and health will not increase substantially as turbine sizes increase. For the same cost fraction, larger turbines will enable a much higher level of control and condition monitoring intelligence. Similarly, larger turbines may also be able to take advantage of technologies such as lightweight superconducting generators that become cost effective only at larger sizes, and show promise for significant weight reductions in large floating wind turbines (Kalsi, 2002). Significant new test facilities and upgrades will be needed to accommodate larger component sizes and higher reliability requirements. The United States has no facilities for testing a 5-MW blade or drivetrain; however Massachusetts and Texas have recently begun partnerships with NREL/DOE to build large blade-testing facilities in the United States (Cotrell et al., 2006). Future offshore turbine designs may lower costs by reducing turbine and tower weight. Some of these designs have been rejected on land because of concerns over acoustic emissions or aesthetics. For example, increasing tip speed, which is normally constrained at about 75 m/s, could result in significantly lower nacelle weights because this would result in lower input torque and lower gear ratios, and hence smaller shafts and gearboxes. Direct-drive generators could be smaller with higher rotational speeds and have the potential to be more reliable than modular gear-driven systems. Permanent magnet generator designs have the potential for further weight reductions and improved efficiency (Poore and Lettenmaier, 2003). Higher rotational speeds will also allow smaller blade planform and lighter blades for the same energy output. Lower loads and alternative lightweight materials may also help reduce tower weight. For floating systems, a large portion of the buoyancy structure supports the weight aloft, so mass reduction in the turbine translates to additional mass off the buoyancy tank. Tank weights might also be lowered with aggregates that weigh 30% less than, but are as strong as, standard mixtures (Holm and Ries, 2006). Multi-rotor concepts may also lower weight above the waterline (Heronemus and Stoddard, 2003; Jamieson and Hassan, 2003). Increasing wind turbine performance and capacity factor can significantly lower energy costs. Several strategies have been proposed to increase the energy capture without increasing structural loads, costs, or electrical power equipment requirements on the turbine. Active extendable rotors, bend twist coupled blades, or more active control surfaces may be more practical offshore than on land. Since the rotor represents only about 4% of the total cost of the offshore system, rotor concepts that increase energy capture at a faster rate than they add to system cost could be implemented at a lower COE (Ashwill, 2003a; Griffin, 2002; U.S. Department, 2007) as long as reliability is not compromised. Turbine designers must also consider strategies to offset the impacts of marine moisture, corrosion, and extreme weather. Ice floes and accretion on the blades add to these concerns at higher latitudes. These solutions will have multiple synergies with land-based systems. Offshore Reliability In order to be economical in the long run, offshore wind turbines will require much higher reliability standards than the current wind industry service record to date. To minimize total life cycle cost, a new balance between initial capital investment and long-term operating costs must be established, because failures at sea will cost more than on land. New turbine designs, starting with the preliminary concepts, must place a higher premium on reliability and anticipating in situ repair methods. Materials must be selected for durability and environmental tolerance. The design basis must be continuously refined to minimize uncertainty in the offshore design load envelope. Emphasis should be placed on avoiding large maintenance events that require expensive and specialized equipment. This can be done intelligently by identifying the root causes of component failures, understanding the frequency and cost of each event, and implementing design improvements (Stiesdal and Madsen, 2005). Better designs, design tools, quality control, testing, and inspection will need heightened emphasis. Offshore machines must be proven on land first before they are deployed at sea in numbers, and the industry must establish guidelines to determine when a machine is ready for deployment at sea. Synergistically, work done to improve land-based wind turbine reliability now will have a direct impact on offshore machines of the future. Operators must be remotely equipped with intelligent turbine condition monitoring and self-diagnostics systems to manage O&M, predict weather windows, minimize downtime, and reduce the equipment needed for up-tower repairs. Condition monitoring systems can be used to inform a smart controlFall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 39 ler of needed operational changes or parameter adjustments. It can also alert operators of the need to schedule maintenance at the most opportune times. A warning about an incipient failure can alert the operators to replace or repair a component before it does significant damage to the system or leaves the machine inoperable for an extended period. More accurate weather forecasting will also become a major contributor in optimizing low-cost service and improving the capacity value of offshore wind (Ougaard, 2005). Offshore Balance of Station Costs Offshore, the wind turbine cost represents only one-third of the life cycle cost of the wind project, whereas on land that cost is more than 50%. Thus, to lower costs for offshore wind, a major focus must be on lowering balance of station costs where substructures, electricity grids, O&M, and installation and staging costs dominate the system cost of energy (COE). Turbine improvements will still be needed to achieve these cost goals, but will focus on reliability, maintainability, performance, and increasing size. None of these improvements by itself is likely to lower turbine cost, but the net result will be lower overall COE. Although much of the core offshore technology used in offshore wind energy came from other established marine industries, the application to offshore wind is very new; therefore, there are major opportunities for reducing cost. One disadvantage is that work done at sea is always more expensive than work done on land because tasks done at sea are simply more difficult. Therefore, when one examines the steps involved in wind turbine design, installation, operation, and decommissioning at sea, the optimum portion of labor done on site (at sea) versus at the factory (on land) should be reexamined. Incurring upfront costs onshore to pay for higher quality assurance, more qualification testing, and more reliable components, for example, may be more economical. This will require a shift in the way wind projects are designed, planned, and managed. New manufacturing processes and improvements to reduce labor and material use, and improve parts quality have high potential to reduce COE. Offshore wind turbines and components may be constructed and as- 40 Marine Technology Society Journal sembled at or near seaport facilities that allow easy access from production to site installation and eliminate shipments of large components over inland roadways (Ashwill, 2003b). Because windfarms are composed of many identical wind turbines per project, new mass production opportunities will help lower costs by allowing many production steps to be automated, streamlined, or eliminated. Experience (learning curve) and development of special tooling that would not be cost effective for single units will help drive down overall turbine costs. Fabrication facilities must be strategically located for mass production, onshore assembly, and rapid deployment with minimal largevessel dependence. Offshore system designs that can be floated out and installed without large cranes can reduce costs significantly. New system and offshore infrastructure designs must be integrated into the turbine design process at an early stage (Poulsen and Skjaerbaek, 2005; Lindvig, 2005; Hansen, 2005; Fulton et al., 2004). Current shallow-water substructures have already reached a practical depth limit below 30 m, and substructure and foundation systems beyond that are derived from conservative and expensive oil and gas design practices. Cost-saving opportunities arise for future wind power plants in deeper water with fixedbottom and floating turbine substructures by re-engineering the anchoring systems for multiple turbine deployments. Fixed-bottom systems that comprise rigid lightweight substructures, automated mass-production fabrication facilities, and integrated mooring/piling deployment systems that minimize dependence on large sea vessels are a possible low-cost option. Floating platforms will require a new generation of mooring designs that can be mass produced and easily installed (Ruinen, 2004; Liu, 2004). Because offshore windfarms will consist of hundreds of turbines, developers can take advantage of economies of scale to capitalize on repetitive installation procedures to lower cost. The behavior and modeling of offshore electrical transmission systems need to be analyzed with respect to grid system reliability, grid losses, faults, stability, and grid architecture options as windfarms increase in size and move further from shore. (Ackerman et al., 2005). Offshore wind and its impact on power fluctuations and wind forecasting will also be a critical issue (Tambke et al., 2005). Control and communication systems of large offshore windfarms will need to be developed to aggregate and control the behavior of hundreds of large wind turbines on the grid (Sorensen et al., 2005). Offshore Wind Energy Societal Benefits The section on Economic Competitiveness of Offshore Wind showed that offshore wind has the potential to install capacities of 54 GW and 78 GW under the WinDS scenarios presented. This degree of penetration can be translated into multiple benefits to society, including reduced production of greenhouse gases, increased economic development, including jobs (construction, manufacturing, permanent local jobs), increased revenue to the economy, lower dependence on foreign energy resources, and avoided emissions from fossil power plants. Increased jobs have been estimated using the Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) model developed at NREL (Tegen, 2006). Although the JEDI module for offshore wind is still being developed, preliminary assessments indicate a larger labor force will be required for offshore wind than for onshore wind. The construction phase job numbers, given as 39,000 job-yrs/GW, include direct, indirect, and induced jobs from the manufacture, installation, and construction of the wind power facilities. The operation and maintenance jobs created (also include direct, indirect, and induced) after the wind projects are installed are listed separately as 1100 jobs/GW because they are better represented a permanent job that will last as long as the wind turbines are operating. Because offshore wind may initially be located along the congested load corridor in the Northeastern United States, the profile of emissions benefits will reflect the displacement of a different mixture of fossil fuels due to their higher dependence on oil in their peaking power facilities. For offshore wind, these avoided emissions have been estimated by the TABLE 2 Summary of Potential Benefits from Offshore Wind Benefit Basis 54-GW 78-GW Energy Supplied .4 cap factor 187.3 TWh 273.2 TWh Percent of Current U.S. Electric Supply 3548 TWh consumed in 2004 5.3 7.7 Potential Jobs Created Construction Phase 39,000 job/yr/GW 2,110,680 job/yr 3,040,830 job/yr Potential Jobs Created Permanent O&M 1,100 job/GW 59,532 jobs 85,767 jobs Capital Invested $1800/kW–$1600/kW $97.4 billion $124.8 billion SOx Avoided (metric tons/yr) 9.26 tons/yr/MW 501,151 722,002 NOx Avoided (metric tons/yr) 3.29 tons/yr/MW 178,054 256,521 CO2 Avoided (metric tons/yr) 3,281 tons/yr/MW 177,567,720 255,819,570 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and their values are used as an approximation for the total impact large quantities of offshore wind would have on a national basis (Berlinski and Connors, 2006). The values used were generated for a typical site in southern Massachusetts, and would be expected to vary significantly by region. Table 2 provides a toplevel view of the benefits described above. Summary Offshore technology development will require substantially different infrastructure and technologies than land-based wind technology. The United States cannot wait for a European market push to begin answering the domestic technical, environmental, or regulatory questions about offshore wind. The effort would best be undertaken as a concerted national effort. This effort should help transform the market for near-term projects to go forward, to fund the long-term research needs, and to integrate research programs and promote a collective vision. The government should provide leadership to accelerate baseline research and prototype technology development to demonstrate feasibility, mitigate risk, and reduce regulatory and environment barriers. This is necessary so private U.S. energy companies will be willing to take the technical and financial steps to initiate near-term development of offshore wind power technologies and bring them to a state of maturity before current domestic electricity supplies dwindle. References Ackermann, T., Negra, N.B., Todorovic, J., Lazaridis, L. 2005. Evaluation of Electrical Transmission Concepts for Large Offshore Windfarms. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. American Wind Energy Association. 2007. http://www.awea.org/projects/ Antoniou, I., Jørgensen, H.E., Mikkelsen, T., Frandsen, S., Barthelmie, R., Perstrup, C., and Hurtig, M. 2006. Offshore Wind Profile Measurements from Remote Sensing Instruments. Presented at the 2006 European Wind Energy Conference. Athens, Greece. Ashwill, Thomas D. 2003a. Innovative Design Approaches for Large Wind Turbine Blades. Sandia National Labs. Report # SAND20040723, 43 pp. Ashwill, Thomas D. 2003b. Blade Manufacturing Improvements: Remote Blade Manufacturing Demonstration. Sandia National Labs. Report # SAND2003-0719, 48 pp. Barthelmie, R., Hansen, O.F., Enevoldsen, K., Hojstrup, J., Frandsen, S., Pryor, S., Larsen, S., Motta, M., and Sandershoff, P. 2005. Ten Years of Meteorological Measurements for Offshore Wind Farms. J Sol Energ-T ASME, May 2006 Issue. ASME, New York. Berlinski, M., and Connors, S. 2006. Economic and Environmental Performance of Potential Northeast Offshore Wind Energy Resources. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT LFEE 2006-02 RP Report. British Wind Energy Association. 2007. http://www.bwea.com/offshore/info.html. Accessed Sept. 2007. Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (Germany BSH). 2007a. Standards for Environmental Impact Assessment. Information on German offshore wind exclusions, available at: http:// www.bsh.de/en/Marine%20uses/Industry/ Wind%20farms/standard_environmental.pdf. Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (Germany BSH). 2007b. Many approved projects, available at: http:// www.bsh.de/en/Marine%20uses/Industry/ Wind%20farms/index.jsp. Cost Study for Offshore Wind Turbine Fixed Bottom Foundations. 2006. NREL Request for Proposals Number REE-7-66526, Issued October. Cotrell, J., Musial, W.D., and Hughes, S. 2006. The Necessity and Requirements of a Collaborative Effort to Develop a Large Wind Turbine Blade Test Facility in North America. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL Report No. TP-500-38044. Dhanju, A., Whitaker, P., and Kempton, W. 2006. Assessing Offshore Wind Resources: A Methodology Applied to Delaware. In: Proceedings of AEW WindPower 2006— Technical Track (CD-ROM). WindPower 2006 Conference & Exhibition, Pittsburgh. Available as Code CW06-506 from AWEA, Washington, DC. Energy Information Administration. 2006. Spread Sheet State Sales, available at: http:// www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/ sales_state.xls. Accessed Oct. 2006. European Wind Energy Association. Long range goals, available at: http://www.ewea.org/ index.php?id=203. Accessed Sept. 2007. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 41 Fingersh, L., Hand, M., and Laxson, A. 2006. Wind Turbine Design Cost and Scaling Model. NREL Report No. TP-500-40566, 43 pp. Fulton, G.R., Malcolm, D.J., and Moroz, E. 2004. Design of a Semi-Submersible Platform for a 5MW Wind Turbine. In: Proceedings of the 44th AIAA/ASME Wind Energy Symposium, Reno, NV. Green, J., Bowen, A., Fingersh, L.J., and Wan, Y. 2007. Electrical Collection and Transmission Systems for Offshore Wind Power. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. OTC-19090-PP. Griffin, D.A. 2002. Evaluation of Design Concepts for Adaptive Wind Turbine Blades. Sandia National Labs. Report # SAND20022424, 19 pp. Hansen, P. 2005. PLACE AND PLUG Method—High Capacity Offshore Installation. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Hasager, C. B., Christiansen, M. B., Nielsen, M., Barthelmie, R. 2005. Using Satellite Data for Mapping Offshore Wind Resources and Wakes. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Heronemus, W.E. 1972. Pollution Free Energy from Offshore Winds. In: Proceedings of the 8th Marine Technology Conference. Heronemus, W.E. and Stoddard, F. 2003. Simple Arrays of Wind Turbines as a Practical Alternative to the Single Large Rotor Machines. Poster Presentation for WindPower 2003 Conference & Exhibition, Austin, TX. Holm, T.A. and Ries, John P. 2006. ASTM STP 169C (Chapter 46): Lightweight Concrete and Aggregates. Jamieson, P. and Hassan, G. 2003. Upscaling Issues for Large Turbines & Experience with Design of Floating Offshore Turbines. DOE and NREL Workshop Presentation on Deep Water Offshore Wind Energy Systems, Washington, DC. Jensen, L.E., and Høgedal, M. 2005. Load Response Measurements at the Horns Rev Wind Farm. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. 42 Marine Technology Society Journal Jonkman, Jason M. and Buhl, Marshall L., Jr. 2007. Development and Verification of a Fully Coupled Simulator for Offshore Wind Turbines. In: Proceedings of the 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, NV. Washington D.C.: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, January 2007; NREL/CP-500-40979. Kalsi, S.S. 2002. Development Status of Superconducting Rotating Machines. IEEE PES Meeting, New York. IEEE CD Cat#02CH37309C. Lindvig, K. 2005. Future Challenges for a Marine Installation Company. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Liu, G. 2004. Technology of SEPLA Anchors. DOE and NREL Workshop Presentation on Deep Water Offshore Wind Energy Systems, Washington, DC. MacAskill, A. 2005. The Beatrice Windfarm Demonstrator: Applying Oil and Gas Expertise to Renewables. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Manwell, J.F., Elkinton, C., Rogers, A., and McGowan, J.G. 2005. Review of Design Conditions Applicable to Offshore Wind Energy in the United States. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 11(2)183-364. Milborrow, D. 2003. Offshore Wind Rises to the Challenge. Wind Power Monthly, April Issue, 2003. Minerals Management Services (MMS). 2007. A summary of MMS authority, available at: http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/ RenewableEnergyMain.htm. Accessed Sept. 2007. Musial, W.D. and Butterfield, C.P. 2004. Future for Offshore Wind Energy in the United States. In: EnergyOcean Proceedings, Palm Beach. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Department of Energy, and American Wind Energy Association. 2007. 20% Wind Vision Technical Report (forthcoming Nov. 2007), Golden, Colorado. Noppenau, H. 2005. Horns Rev 2, Time Schedule, Contract Strategy and Choice of Technology. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Ougaard, F. (Vestas). 2005. Turbine Access— Now and in the Future. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Palo, P. 2003. Deepwater Wind Energy Systems Ocean Technology Issues and Recommendations. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. Port Hueneme, CA. Piwko, R., Osborn, D., Gramlich, R., Jordan, G., Hawkins, D., and Porter, K. 2005. Wind Energy Delivery Issues: Transmission and Competitive Electricity Market Operation. IEEE Power and Generation Magazine: Schenectady, NY, pp. 47-56. Poore, R. and Lettenmaier, T. 2003. Alternative Design Study Report: WindPACT Advanced Wind Turbine Drive Train Designs Study, November 1, 2000—February 28, 2002. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL Report No. SR-500-33196, 556 pp. Poulsen, S.F. and Skjærbæk, P.S. 2005. Efficient Installation of Offshore Wind Turbines: Lessons learned from Nysted Offshore Wind Farm. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Risoe National Laboratories. 2007. Annual report describing the UpWind Project, available at: http://www.risoe.dk/ annual_report2005_uk.htm#year. Accessed Sept. 2007. Rogers, A.L., Manwell, J.F., McGowan, J.G., Ellis, A.F., Abdulwahid, U., and LaCroix, A. 2000. A Fresh Look at Offshore Wind Energy Opportunities in Massachusetts. In: Proceedings of AWEA WindPower 2000, Palm Springs. Ruinen, R. 2004. Use of Drag Embedment Anchor for Floating Wind Turbines. DOE and NREL Workshop Presentation on Deep Water Offshore Wind Energy Systems, Washington, DC. Short, W. and Sullivan, P. 2007. Modeling the National Potential for Offshore Wind. In: Proceedings of WindPower 2007. WindPower 2007 Conference & Exhibition, Los Angeles. Short, W., Blair, N., Heimiller, D., and Singh, V. 2003. Modeling the Long-Term Market Penetration of Wind in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Report No. CP-620-34469, 15 pp. Smith, K. and Hagerman, G. 2001. The Potential for Offshore Wind Development in the United States. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, Stockholm. UK Department of Trade & Industry. 2007. GIS maps from the U.K.’s Offshore Wind Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), available at: http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/ offshore-wind-sea/index.htm. White House Economic Council. 2006. Advanced Energy Initiative Report, Washington, DC. Wiser, R. and Bolinger, M. 2006. Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE/GO-102007-2433. Sørensen, P., Hansen, A.D., Thomsen, K., Madsen, Nielsen, H.A., Poulsen, N.K., Iov, F., Blaabjerg, F., and Donovan, M.H. 2005. Wind Farm Controllers with Grid Support. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Stiesdal, H. and Madsen, P.H. 2005. Design for Reliability. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Tambke, J., Poppinga, C., von Bremen, L., Claveri, L., Lange, M., Focken, U., Bye, J., and Wolff, J. 2005. Forecasting 25 GW Wind Power above North and Baltic Sea. In: Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind Conference, Copenhagen. Tegen, S., Goldberg, M., Milligan, M. 2006. User-Friendly Tool to Calculate Economic Impacts from Coal, Natural Gas, and Wind: The Expanded Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model (JEDI II). Presented at WindPower 2006, Pittsburgh. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL Report # CP-500-40085. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2006. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383. U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2007. Inventions & Innovation Project Abstract: Variable Length Wind Turbine Blade, available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/inventions/ pdfs/energyunlimited.pdf. Accessed Sept. 2007. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 43 PAPER Economic and Social Benefits from Wave Energy Conversion Marine Technology AUTHOR ABSTRACT Roger Bedard Electric Power Research Institute This paper summarizes the energy resource, the energy conversion technology, and the economic and social benefits of using wave energy technology. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimates that the U.S. wave resource potential that could credibly be harnessed is about 6.5% of the 2004 U.S. national electricity energy demand (the total 2004 demand was about 4,000 TWh). Wave energy conversion (WEC) is an emerging technology; ten WEC devices have been tested to date in natural waters worldwide over the past 10 years. The economic opportunities are significant. A relatively minor investment by government in the public good today could stimulate a worldwide industry generating billions of dollars of economic output and employing thousands of people, while using an abundant and clean natural resource to meet our energy needs. Wave energy is potentially more easily assimilated into the grid (compared to wind and solar) because it may be more accurately predictable two to three days ahead and sold as firm power. Given proper care in siting, deployment, operations, maintenance and decommissioning, wave power promises to be one of the most environmentally benign electrical generation technologies. The primary barrier to the development and use of these technologies in the U.S. is the cumbersome regulatory process. We recommend and encourage the development of an effective regulatory system that fosters the application of this environmentally friendly electricity generation technology for our society. Resource T he power of ocean waves is truly awesome. Aside from thrilling surfing enthusiasts and enthralling beachgoers, their destructive potential has long earned the respect of generations of fishermen, boaters, and other mariners who encounter the forces of the sea. Ocean waves can be harnessed into useful energy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. Instead of burning depleting fossil fuel reserves, we can obtain energy from a resource as clean, pollution free, and abundant as ocean waves. The technology, though young, exists to convert the power of ocean waves into electricity. The worldwide wave energy resource, stated in kW power per unit meter of wave crest length, estimated by Dr. Tom Thorpe (Thorpe, 1998) is shown in Figure 1. The highest energy waves are concentrated off western coasts in the 40o–60o latitude range FIGURE 1 Worldwide Wave Resource (Thorpe, 1998). 44 Marine Technology Society Journal north and south. The power in the wave fronts varies in these areas between 30 and 70 kW/ m with peaks to 100kW/m in a few locations. EPRI estimates that the U.S. wave resource potential which could be credibly harnessed is about 6.5% of 2004 U.S. national electric- ity energy demand (EPRI WP-009-US). The U.S. wave energy potential is about 2,100 TWh/yr (see Figure 2) and composed of four (4) regional wave energy climates, each with their own characteristics. Assuming an extraction of 15% wave to mechanical energy (which includes the effects of device spacing, devices which absorb less than all the available wave energy and sea space constraints), typical power train efficiencies of 90% and a plant availability of 90%, electricity produced is about 260 TWh/yr, which is about equivalent to the total 2004 energy generation of conventional hydro power. In order to effectively use wave energy, the variability over several time scales— namely: wave to wave (seconds), wave group to wave group (minutes), and sea state to sea state (hours to days)—must be understood. The time scale of seconds to minutes is important for continuously “tuning” the plant to changing sea states. The hours to days time scale is important for providing firm power guarantees into the day ahead electrical grid market. Being able to accurately forecast changes in wave energy in response to the FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 U.S. Wave Resource. East Pacific Wave Forecast. AK 1,250 Hawaii 300 TWh/yr WA, OR & CA 440 TWh/yr evolving sea and swell conditions over a time scale of hours to days is important to utility dispatchers concerned about unpredicted variability in plant output for load balancing. Using the Washington, Oregon and Northern California region as an example, the two primary sources of wave energy along these coasts are seas built up by local winds and swell generated by storms far offshore in the North Pacific Ocean. These storms are born in the northwestern Pacific Ocean as prevailing dry, westerly winds off the Asian continent pick up heat and moisture from the Kuroshio Current. These low-pressure systems typically develop sustained wind speeds up to 50 knots (25 m/sec), blowing over a 1,000 km stretch of water for two to three days, as they follow northeasterly tracks into the Gulf of Alaska. Such storms are most frequent and intense from November through March, although they occur throughout the year. In order to take a quick look at what sort of accuracy might be expected at different forecast time horizons using the existing NOAA WAVEWATCH III implementation in the East North Pacific (ENP) region, we used the peak period forecast map for the “ENP West Coast Zoom” for 17 January 2006 at 00:00 GMT for every 24 hours, starting five days in advance of the New England and Mid Atlantic 110 TWh/yr target date and time. The forecast significant wave height was then compared with measurements at one deep-water forecast/measurement location; namely, Stonewall Banks, 20 nautical miles west of Newport, Oregon (NDBC buoy 46050). In this quick-look example, the peak period prediction had stabilized by 72 hours in advance (3-DAY forecast time horizon), and the significant wave height prediction had stabilized by 48 hours in advance (2-DAY forecast time horizon). The 2DAY forecast map is shown in Figure 3. In 2007, EPRI will perform a study to quantify wave forecasting accuracy as a function of the forecast time horizon. EPRI Feasibility Studies In 2004, EPRI performed an offshore wave power feasibility definition study examining five locations and two WEC technologies (EPRI WP-006-HI, WP-006-OR, WP006-ME, WP-006-MA, WP-006-SFa, WP-006-SFb). Design, performance, cost and economic assessments have been made for sites in Hawaii, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, and Maine. Designs have been developed for both demonstration-scale and commercial-scale power plants. All wave plants are based on the Ocean Power Delivery (OPD) Pelamis WEC device shown in Figure 4a. A typical Pelamisbased wave farm power plant configuration is FIGURE 4 Ocean Power Delivery Pelamis (a) and Farm (b) (courtesy Ocean Power Delivery). a b Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 45 FIGURE 5 Energetech Oscillating Water Column (OWC), Australia (courtesy Energetech). TABLE 1 WEC Costs and CoE in end-of-year 2004 current dollars (see EPRI WP-002-US Rev 4 for financing and incentive assumptions; each state has different tax rates and incentives) HI OR CA1 CA2 MA ME Number of Units 300,000 MWh/yr 180 180 213 152 206 615 Total Plant Investment (2004$M) 270 235 279 238 273 735 Annual O&M Cost (2004$M) 11 11 13 11 12 33 10-Year Refit Cost (2004$M) 24 23 23 15 26 74 CoE (cents/kWh) 12.4 11.6 13.4 11.1 13.4 39.1 illustrated in Figure 4b. A second study was performed for the San Francisco, California site with an Energetech oscillating water column (OWC) device shown in Figure 5. The estimated investor-owned utility (IOU) generator busbar levelized cost of electricity (CoE) of the commercial-scale plants; each sized to provide 300,000 MWhr/yr, is shown in Table 1 with the California Pelamis design as CA1 and the California Energetech as CA2. The economic assessment methodology including financing and incentive assumptions is described in Report EPRI WP002 (EPRI WP-002-US Rev 4). WEC Technology Status There are literally thousands of different conceptual ocean energy conversion devices patented. However, only a hundred or so have progressed to rigorous subscale laboratory towor wave-tank model testing, only 25 or so have progressed to short-term (days to months) smallscale tests in natural waters and only 10 or so have progressed to long-term ( >1 year) largescale prototypes in natural waters. 46 Marine Technology Society Journal In addition to the OPD Pelamis and the Energetech OWC, other devices which have progressed to testing in natural waters during the last 10 years are listed in Table 2. The time period for a technology to progress from a conceptual idea to deployment of a long-term full-scale prototype in natural waters is historically in the order of 5 to 10 years. The technology is in its emerging stage and it is too early to know which technology will turn out to be the most cost-effective in the future. TABLE 2 WEC Device Developers in Natural Waters Developer/ Country Device Name Deployment Location Size & Grid Connection AWS Energy UK Archimedes Wave Swing Portugal 700 kW in ocean grid connected Ecofys Netherlands Wave Rotor Denmark 1:10 subscale in ocean and grid connected Energetech Australia Uiscebeathe Australia 500 kW in ocean grid connected Fred Olsen Norway FO Research g “Buldra” Norway 1:3 subscale in ocean not grid connected Ocean Power Delivery Scotland Pelamis Orkneys, UK 750 kW in ocean grid connected Ocean Power Technologies USA PowerBuoy® Hawaii, USA 40 kW in ocean, not grid connected Renewable Energy Holdings UK CETO Australia Subscale, not grid connected Wavebob Ltd Ireland Wavebob WEC Ireland 1:4. subscale in ocean, Not grid connected Wave Dragon Ltd Denmark Wave Dragon Denmark 1:4.5 subscale in ocean grid connected Wave Star Energy Denmark Wave Star Denmark 1:10 subscale in ocean and grid connected European Marine Energy Center The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) (http://www.emec.org.uk/ index.html), established in 2003, is a testing center in Orkney, UK that aims to stimulate and accelerate the development of marine power devices. The wave center’s facilities include four test berths situated along the 50 m water depth contour off Billia Croo on the Orkney mainland (approximately 2 km offshore). Armored cables link each berth to a substation onshore. These cables link to an 11kV transmission cable connecting to the national grid and to a data/communications center located in nearby Stromness. The main elements of the facility are: ■ Four Test Berths: Four individual armored cables (electrical conductor rated at 11kV/2.5-MW, two fiber-optic cables, and two control wires) connected to the onshore substation. The first wave energy device installed was the OPD Pelamis in 2005 and the next device planned for deployment is the Archimedes Wave Swing in 2008. ■ Substation: Containing switchgear, metering equipment, power factor correction equipment, communications equipment, emergency generator, and the grid isolator. ■ Observation Point: Containing two video cameras and a wireless communication link to the test site, linked back to the Value Center. ■ Weather Station: Stand-alone solarpowered meteorological station linked to the Data Center. American Marine Energy Center The U.S. National Center (www.eecs.orst.edu/msrf) is proposed by Oregon State University (OSU) to be established in the next few years, located at a research/ demonstration site in Newport, Lincoln County Oregon where land-based facilities would be integrated with the ongoing activities at the Oregon State University (OSU) Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC). The main elements of the facility would be similar to that at EMEC. The National Center will advance wave energy developments through a number of initiatives such as testing existing ocean energy extraction technologies, research and development of advanced systems, investigation of reliable integration with the utility grid and intermittency issues and development of wave energy power measurement standards. Environmental Assessment Given proper care in siting, deployment, operations, maintenance and decommissioning, wave power promises to be one of the most environmentally benign electrical generation technologies (EPRI WP-007-US). We anticipate that wave power projects will require coordination with local, state and federal agencies and may include field studies. Baseline assessments can frequently be accomplished through review of existing information and databases and through consultation with appropriate agencies and stakeholders. During the environmental permitting process for each project, it is expected that agency staff, other stakeholders, and developers will discuss concerns regarding potential project effects, project operational characteristics, and how effects can be avoided or minimized. Because of uncertainty about environmental effects, ocean wave plants will most probably be deployed first in pilot arrays and “built out” to commercial plant sizes using an adaptive management approach of monitoring to assure the promise of minimum environmental effects. Societal Cost of Electricity Generation Electricity is a critical “backbone” in sustaining the Nation’s economic growth and development and the well-being of its inhabitants. Nearly 70% of the U.S. electricity is generated using fossil fuels. Electric power plants that burn fossil fuels emit several pollutants linked to environmental problems such as acid rain, urban ozone, and global climate change. The economic damages caused by these emissions are viewed by many economists as “negative externalities” and an inefficiency of the market when electricity rates do not reflect, nor ratepayers directly pay, the associated societal costs. There is much debate about the true value of these costs, but certainly the cost is greater than the zero cost currently applied by our society. Renewable power production from solar, wind, wave and tides usually has a lower environmental impact due to lower externalities, which represents a societal benefit over more traditional fossil fuel generation options. For planning new power generation, should regulators favor technologies with lower capital cost but higher emissions than technologies with higher capital cost and lower emissions? We will NOT attempt to answer that question; however, we will present data that will enable the reader to be able to weigh the costs, both capital and emission cost, of alternative electricity generation technologies. At the end of the day, society, through its politicians and regulators representing the will of the people, will answer this question. Over two decades ago, as wind technology was beginning its emergence into the commercial marketplace, the CoE was in excess of 20 cents/kWhr. The historical wind technology CoE as a function of cumulative production is shown in Figure 6. Over 75,000 MW of wind has now been installed worldwide and the technology has experienced an 82% learning curve (i.e., the cost is reduced by 18% for each doubling of cumulative installed capacity) and the CoE is about 6 to 7 cents/ kWhr (in 2006$ with no incentives) for an average 30% capacity factor plant. Wave energy technology today is about where wind was 20 years ago; just starting its emergence as a commercial technology. There are only a few MWs of wave energy capacity installed worldwide and the first commercial plant is being installed in Portugal at the 30 MW size and is receiving a feed in tariff of about 40 cents/ kWh. The EPRI estimate for wave energy CoE in the Pacific Northwest, after applying a production tax credit (PTC) equal to that of wind energy is shown in Figure 6. EPRI wave energy feasibility studies performed in 2004/2005 (EPRI WP-006-HI, WP-006-OR, WP-006-ME, WP-006-MA, WP-006-SFa, WP-006-SFb) showed that wave energy will enter the market place at a lower entry cost than wind technology did and will progress down a learning curve that is similar to that of wind energy (82% learning curve). Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 47 FIGURE 6 Actual Wind and Projected Wave Energy Cost of Electricity (assuming a PTC equivalent to wind energy). A challenge to the wave industry at the very high installed capacities will be to assure that the inherently higher cost of offshore O&M compared to on-land wind O&M allows the wave technology total capital plus O&M CoE to be economically viable. In order to quantify the monetary value of the emissions displaced by using wave energy instead of coal (whether wave will displace coal, gas or some other fuel and at what percentages is a question whose answer is unknown today), we take the pragmatic approach of monetizing SOx, NOx, Mercury, and CO2 coal emissions at rates being paid in some areas. How much is being paid to avoid emissions provides an imperfect but explainable approach in estimating how great a harm the emissions are causing. The value of avoided emissions is shown in Table 3. For a standard 500MW pulverized coal (PC) plant, monetizing the SOx, NOx and Mercury emissions above would increase the CoE from the 4.8 cents/kWh CoE of that standard PC plant to about 5.0 cents/kWh. Adding $15/ton CO2 would increase the CoE of the plant from the 5.0 cents/kWh to 6.2 cents/kWh. The avoided emissions at a deployment level of 4 GW of wave plants operating at 40% capacity factor, using a proxy coal fired plant with emissions at the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) limit of what can be permitted (actual plants may be less), is shown in Table 4 (note that the emissions rate for mercury is for Bituminous coal and the NSPS for mercury varies with coal type). Social Benefits of Wave Energy The benefits to society offered by wave energy include: 1) providing a new, environmentally friendly and easily assimilated gridconnected option for meeting load growth and legislated Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements, 2) avoiding the aesthetic concerns which plague many infrastructure projects, 3) reducing dependence on imported energy supplies, increasing national security and reducing the risk of future fossil fuel price volatility, 4) reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by displacing fossil fuel-based generation, and 5) stimulating local job creation and economic development. Each of the five benefit areas are discussed in the following paragraphs. 1). Providing a new, environmentally friendly and easily assimilated grid-connected option for meeting load growth and legislated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements EPRI believes that there is no panacea to our energy needs and that a diversified and balanced portfolio of energy supplies alternatives is the foundation of a reliable and robust electrical system. This means building and sustaining a robust portfolio of clean affordable options ensuring the continued use of coal, nuclear, gas, renewable and end-use energy efficiency. Wave energy is but one of the options, albeit a sustainable and environmentally friendly option, that we believe should be investigated as a potential new supply option for our national portfolio. Wave energy is potentially “easily assimilated” into the electrical grid because we believe it may be accurately predictable two to three days ahead and sold as firm power and used for load balancing. The “ease of assimilation” statement is made compared to wind and concentrating solar thermal options. A RPS is a state policy that requires electricity providers to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from renewable energy resources by a certain date. Currently there are 20 states plus the District of Columbia that have RPS policies in place. Together these states account for more than 52% of the electricity sales in the United States. Nearly 55,000 MW TABLE 4 Emissions Avoided Pollutant TABLE 3 Emissions Rate (lbs/MWhr) 4,000 MW Wave Plant (tons/year) 1,600 11,000,000 Emissions Avoided Value 48 CO2 $/ton SOx $/ton 10-20 500-1,000 NOx $/ton Mercury $/lb 3,000-4,000 10,000-25,000 Marine Technology Society Journal 2 Mercury 2.1 X 10 Particulates 0.2 -6 0.014 1,400 of new renewable capacity will be added in the U.S. by 2020 if the current RPS mandates are achieved. 2). Avoiding the aesthetic concerns which plague so many infrastructure projects Wave energy may avoid aesthetic concerns that have plagued many infrastructure projects. WEC devices are sited many miles offshore and have a low profile above water (like an iceberg, much of the device is submerged). The submerged transmission cable will be buried and will be landed under the beach using horizontal directional drilling. 3). Reducing dependence on imported energy supplies, increasing national security and reducing the risk of future fossil fuel price volatility The United States consumes 25% of all the oil produced in the world, yet we control just 3% of the world’s oil reserves. As a result of this imbalance, we’ve become heavily reliant on foreign oil, much of which comes from the conflict-ridden Middle East. In 1974, our country imported 1 million barrels a day from the Persian Gulf; today, that figure tops 2.5 million. This dependence means our economy is highly vulnerable to changes in the price and supply of oil—a fact that’s become all the more unsettling since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. In the 1970s and early 1980s, oil and gas prices skyrocketed, making utilities and their customers keenly aware of their reliance on fuel sources. Oil and gas prices then plunged to low levels in the 1990s, resulting in construction of more gas-fired power plants. Prices to electric utilities fluctuated from about $2 to $3 per 1000 ft3 for most of the late 1980s and 1990s. In 2000, however, gas prices started to climb, and reached over $8 per 1000 ft3 by December 2000. Prices peaked at $9.47 per 1000 ft3 in January 2001, but by December 2001 had collapsed down to $3.11 per 1000 ft3. Such fluctuations are likely to continue in the future; no one knows just when and how much. Electricity systems using natural gas are exposed to this large fuel price risk; a risk that carries a cost. Renewable energy technologies, in contrast, are not subject to this risk as they don’t use fossil fuels. It is a sound strategy for a utility to minimize fuelprice risks by taking low-cost steps to ensure a suitably diverse resource mix. 4). Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases Electricity generation is the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions, accounting for over 40% of the total carbon emissions. Use of emission-free ocean energy instead of conventional pulverized coal energy to generate electricity means that 0.8 tons of carbon per MWhr of electricity produced is not released into the atmosphere. For a 300 MW PC plant that is almost 2 million tons of carbon per year. Of course, other emissions such as sulphur oxides, nitrous oxides, mercury and particulates are also reduced. 5). Stimulating local job creation and economic development The economic opportunities are significant. A relatively minor investment today by government could stimulate a worldwide industry generating billions of dollars of economic output and employing thousands of people while using an abundant and clean natural resource. Ocean energy is an indigenous energy resource. By harvesting this indigenous resource, jobs will be created and local economies will be improved. Construction and operations of wave energy plants would bring significant positive economic impacts to coastal states. As an example, EPRI estimates that the operation and maintenance activities alone will create about 25 direct local jobs per 100 MW wave power plant and these jobs are permanent for as long as the plant is in operation. The U.S. economy would benefit from the large export potential of a strong domestic renewable energy industry. Barriers The primary barrier to the development and use of wave energy in the U.S. is the cumbersome regulatory process. The regulatory process being applied today was designed over a half century ago for conventional hydroelectric plants and does not fit the characteristics of today’s wave and tidal in-stream energy conversion technology (EPRI WP-008-US). Extensive regulation applies to even small pilot projects whose purpose is to investigate the interactions between the energy conversion devices and the environment in which they operate. The impacts of these pilot demon- stration projects are expected to be minimal given the small size of the projects. Developers cannot gather data on potential impacts through installation and operation of a shortterm pilot demonstration project without going through the same license process that applies to 30 to 50 year licenses for major conventional impoundment or dam-type hydro projects. There is a provision whereby FERC will waive the requirement for a license for a small, experimental, short-term pilot plant as long as the developer does not realize revenue for the electricity that is generated and pays the local utility for the electricity displaced by the pilot plant’s generation; a condition which many developers find unacceptable because it denies them revenue during the pilot phase. In addition, licenses are still required from many other regulatory agencies. In the absence of information on how projects operate in real-world conditions and how they affect the environment in which they operate, ocean energy developers cannot attract capital. This existing regulatory situation is hampering and will continue to hamper the progress of the ocean energy industry in the U.S. The cost of these delays to American business is significant. While many countries in the world move forward with this technology, the U.S. remains on the sidelines neither benefiting its own industry nor benefiting itself in taking the steps necessary to overcome its addiction to fossil fuel-based energy. Once regulatory barriers are removed, the next largest barrier may be the leveling of the playing field for ocean energy vis-à-vis fossil fuel and those renewable technologies that rely on government incentives. It is very difficult for a new technology to overcome market introduction barriers compared to established technologies even with a level playing field. The playing field is not level compared to fossil fuel generation technologies because these technologies are not made to account for negative externalities. The playing field is not level compared to wind and solar generation technologies because these technologies are the sole renewable recipients of production tax credits. An uneven playing field slanted away from ocean energy will hamper the progress of the ocean energy industry in the U.S. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 49 While no technology barriers are evident, further technology advances are essential to achieving reductions in electricity cost from wave power plants. Therefore, the lack of U.S. government R&D funding is also a barrier, but this is offset by substantial funding from other governments and from private investors. EPRI will continue to work to help the electric utility industry develop and demonstrate new renewable options for diversifying and balancing their generation portfolios and will continue to work to knock down the barriers that are impeding the investigation of these renewable generation options. We have a dream of an affordable, efficient and reliable power supply and transmission system that is environmentally responsible and economically strong. This electricity system is supported by an effective regulatory system that fosters the application of the best electricity generation technology for the good of society as a whole. EPRI will continue working to try to make this dream a reality. As we in North America live in an increasingly global society, it is up to us, each and every one of us, to work together, not only to dream about our desired energy future, but to actively work together to make it happen. References EPRI Wave Power (WP) Reports are available on our website www.epri.com/oceanenergy/ EPRI WP-009-US. Final Summary Phase 1 Wave Energy Report. EPRI WP-006-HI. System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate— Hawaii. EPRI WP-006-OR. System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate— California. EPRI WP-006-ME. System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate— Maine. EPRI WP-006-MA. System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate— Mass. 50 Marine Technology Society Journal EPRI WP-006-SFa. System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate— San Francisco, California Pelamis Offshore Wave Power Plant. EPRI WP-006-SFb. System Level Design, Preliminary Performance and Cost Estimate— San Francisco Energetech Offshore Wave Power Plant. EPRI WP-002-US Rev 4. Cost of Electricity Assessment Methodology for Offshore WEC Devices. EPRI WP-007-US. Identification of Environmental Issues. EPRI WP-008-US. Identification of Permitting Issues. Thorpe, T.W. 1998. An Overview of Wave Energy Technologies, ETSU, part of AEA Technology, Harwell, UK. PAPER Fresh Water from the Sea and Other Uses of Deep-Ocean Water for Sustainable Technologies AUTHOR ABSTRACT David W. Jourdan Nauticos LLC Common Heritage Corporation Everyone and everything needs fresh water, and many sources of this precious commodity are in peril. In coastal areas, desalination of ocean water is an option, but it can be expensive, consume power, and generate waste. In recent times, the idea that the oceans can provide an “endless bounty” has been called into serious question with such evidence as the collapse of many fisheries and the growth of “dead zones” from waste and nutrient runoff. However, one resource of the ocean that may be practically inexhaustible is its reservoir of cold. Drawn from a thousand meters or more from the surface, Deep Ocean Water (DOW), barely above the freezing point, can be used in many ways, among them condensing fresh water from humid air in tropical environments. This fresh water resource requires little energy to produce, requires no chemicals, and produces no waste. It is most suitable for use in tropical islands and coastal deserts, which are generally near a source of cold ocean water, have warm, humid air, and little available fresh water. Further, there are other uses for the cold of DOW, enhancing agriculture in some surprising ways, and even supporting aquaculture. The Common Heritage Corporation of Hawai’i is investigating economically feasible development of this resource and other DOW technologies around the world. Background F resh water is a vital commodity, and one in short supply in many places around the world. Production of fresh water where none is otherwise available generally involves some kind of desalination process (removing salts and other chemicals from seawater), either through distillation or a filtering process called reverse-osmosis. These and other techniques require significant consumption of energy, production of heat, use of chemicals, or production of waste products in some measure. Is there another way? Most industrial processes, including the production of fresh water, use heat to drive the activity that yields the product. But it is not really the temperature that is important; rather, it is the temperature difference between hot and cold parts of the system that drives heat transfer. This temperature difference can be between hot and ambient surfaces, or between cold and ambient; either way, heat transfer can drive a process. The depths of the world’s oceans are cold. Close to the deep-sea floor, the temperature of the ocean ranges between 34 and 39 °F (1 and 4 °C); in fact, in the deep abyssal plains of the world’s major ocean basins, the temperature can be below the freezing point of fresh water, leading to the whimsical term “liquid ice” for the cold, pressurized fluid found there. So, can we use the temperature difference between cold Deep Ocean Water (DOW) to drive some process? The answer to this question was first explored through a system called OTEC, or Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. The 60 million square kilometers (23 million square miles) of ocean surface in the tropics absorbs enough solar radiation every day equal to about 250 billion barrels of oil, yet the temperature difference between surface and bottom is relatively constant. OTEC systems use this natural thermal gradient to drive a power-producing cycle. Like any major power plant, the OTEC process favors large systems and corresponding capital investments to achieve efficiencies of scale. Thus, in spite of the promise of OTEC as a renewable alternative energy resource, the economics of this current era of cheap oil have not yet favored its development on any significant scale. Is there a simpler way to make use of the oceans’ reservoir of cold? One idea put into practice back in the 1990s is very simple—just condense fresh water out of the atmosphere. In 1992, Eli Hay of Nisymco Inc., in Montreal, Canada and colleagues from the University of Nottingham built a prototype system designed to generate 1,000 gallons per day of fresh water from atmospheric condensation, using chilled water at around 50°F (10°C). Hay explored the relationships between cold-water temperatures, atmospheric humidity, flow rates, and types of materials used for condensing surfaces, among other critical parameters. Given a source of cold DOW, this process required little energy (just a circulating pump and fans), generated no waste materials, required no chemicals, and yielded pure fresh water. Around the same time, in 1991, the Common Heritage Corporation (CHC) was founded by Dr. John P. Craven to develop a broad range of sustainable technologies surrounding the use of DOW. The original facilities and demonstration systems of CHC were built at the site of the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai’i Authority (NELHA), at Keahole Point near Kailua-Kona on the Big Island of Hawai’i. As co-founder of NELHA in 1974, its president for nearly two decades, and chairman of the board for its first decade, Craven led the development of DOW systems technologies at this unique research facility. At NELHA, CHC was able to use DOW collected from pipelines laid at a depth of 2,000 feet, and experiment with cold seawater temperatures below 45°F (7°C). During the 1990s, CHC and NELHA explored a number of uses for DOW, including fresh water production, energy conversion, agriculFall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 51 ture, aquaculture, and even human physiological treatments. The fresh water production component matured into a patented process called SkyWater; the agricultural process, also patented, became known as ColdAg™. As we shall see, pure, clean fresh SkyWater is sufficient unto itself, but ColdAg™ is both an irrigation technique and a thermodynamic process that affects crop growth in remarkable ways that are still being studied. DOW Installations In the tropical oceans, to obtain cold DOW at 45°F (7°C) or below, one must generally draw the water from a depth of more than 2,000 feet. A number of installations exist around the world that have used noncorroding high-density polyethylene plastic, essentially sewer pipe, to bring the water to the surface. Plastic pipe has many advantages, including availability, ease of assembly, and durability. Also, the insulating properties of the pipe help reduce heat loss from the DOW while ascending to the surface. The pipe is laid by first “welding” sections together on shore (that is, heating and fusing the ends of segments) and feeding them out to a sheltered bay or lagoon. As they are fed into the water, concrete weights are added that will be used to anchor them to the bottom when placed on site. With the water end sealed, the flotation of the air-filled pipe is sufficient to keep the growing continuous pipe from sinking. The completed pipe is then towed into position (usually at night when conditions are calmer), and sunk in place by allowing air to escape and water to flow into the pipe. Meanwhile, a landfall section is prepared, which may require burial or even tunneling to be sure that the pipe can survive weather, tides, and currents. The job is complete after an underwater inspection of the critical landfall section using divers and/or robotic vehicles (ROVs). As expensive as these piping systems are, they should last decades if properly designed and installed. It is important to site the system near deep water, to minimize the run of piping. Longer pipes are more expensive to build and install, develop more “head loss” requiring larger circulating pumps, and allow the DOW to warm 52 Marine Technology Society Journal more before reaching the plant. Also, sites should be at a low elevation so that the DOW does not have to be raised before use, again requiring more pumping. Fortunately, there are many tropical island and coastal desert locations around the world that meet these criteria. In most DOW applications, the seawater itself is never touched, and simply returned to the ocean slightly warmer than when collected. Since this water is distinctly different from the near-shore water, both in temperature and nutrient content, it is wise not to discharge it directly offshore, but rather to return it at some intermediate depth. For this reason, a second (shorter) pipe is needed. Annular designs involve placing the source pipe inside a larger return pipe, with the return water flowing through the annular space. This not only simplifies installation, but helps further insulate the DOW from the warmer surrounding surface waters. A typical recent installation was performed (by Makai Ocean Engineering, Inc. of Hawai’i) on the island of Bora Bora in Tahiti. Designed primarily to support seawater air conditioning (SWAC) of the island’s Intercontinental Hotel, the pipeline is 2.3 kilometers long (7600 ft) and has a diameter of 400 mm (16 inches). It supplies frigid 41°F (5°C) DOW from a depth of 2950 feet (900 meters). The water is circulated using a 15-kilowatt seawater pump, providing cooling that would otherwise consume 300 kilowatts of electricity from a traditional air conditioning plant. Still, only half of the capacity of the system is used, allowing the addition of other DOW technologies drawing from the same resource. Fresh Water Production Fresh, potable water literally falls from the sky with SkyWater technology. In coastal desert communities, where rainfall is scant and humidity high, the interplay between the atmosphere and the surface of pipes filled with cold DOW yields pure drinking water under controlled, pristine conditions. There are few processing steps and moving parts, and SkyWater can be produced less expensively than other water processes, such as reverse osmosis and desalinization, which have heavy energy demands. The key to the system is that the cold resource is not manufactured, but instead comes from a natural-occurring and inexpensive resource. CHC’s technology takes advantage of atmospheric vapor conditions, cold deep-sea water, and dew point temperature. At Keahole Point in Hawai’i, the dew point (DP) temperature averages 60-68°F and relative atmospheric humidity averages 65-80% (RH). Any surface material below dew point temperature will condense pure freshwater from the atmosphere. A simple sketch of a SkyWater unit is shown in Figure 1. Traditional solar distillation processes require a large humidification area to heat seawater to near vaporization temperature. Solar distillation produces freshwater vapor that rises to the top of the solar collector, where it condenses and, thereafter, is collected. SkyWater uses DOW as cooling fluid plumbed to a fluidto-air surface condenser, greatly increasing the freshwater condensing capacity and reducing the overall collection area compared to traditional solar still designs. Since the water is condensed from the atmosphere, there is no filtering as with reverse osmosis, and no risk of contamination from source fluid or chemicals. One of the key factors in the performance of a SkyWater system is the design and material selection. One of the original demonstration systems in Keahole Point simply used coils of PVC pipe suspended over a collection barrel. Although the steady flow of moisture from the coils was impressive, much could be gained from design improvements. FIGURE 1 PVC is a poor material for heat transfer, but it is inexpensive and non-corrosive. Many seawater heat exchanges are made from titanium, which also has good corrosion performance and better heat transfer, but is very expensive. The system built by Hay and Brewer at the University of Nottingham (the Brewer model) took advantage of new techniques for manufacturing roll-bonded aluminum heat exchanger flat panels to achieve much better rates of water production. The heat transfer comparison is best illustrated by assessing the physical properties as shown in Table 1; numbers vary for different alloys and manufacturer’s performance data. Heat conductivity is given both in Watts per meter per degree Kelvin, and in English units of BTU per hour per degree F per foot. FIGURE 2 TABLE 1 We can see an enhancement in heat transfer of an order of magnitude between titanium and aluminum, and more than two orders of magnitude for PVC. The Brewer model showed that aluminum heat exchangers could be built with reasonable economy, and future production systems will probably be made this way. A simple condensing system is effective, but there are more efficient ways to use the DOW cold in conjunction with available solar heating, which is in abundance in most tropical areas suitable for DOW technology. One device that takes advantage of this is known as a “Hurricane Tower.” The device consists of three or more stages, the first being a dehumidifying (condensing) stage as described above. The rate of fresh water collection from the heat exchanger can be increased by vibrating the heat exchanger to increase the rate of dripping. But rather than returning the warmer DOW back to the sea, some of it is directed by a gravity siphon to stage two of the device: an evaporation tower, heated by the sun, which vaporizes some of the DOW. The tower is configured as a chimney and includes a vortex generator that operates to maximize the flow of the vapor up towards a collection structure above the tower. Another condenser cooled by DOW is placed in the path of the vapor to be condensed. The fresh water condensate that is collected has been cooled by the DOW and is itself available for use through a gravity siphon feed into a third stage. A vibrator, as in stage one, may be used here to increase the level of condensate collection. A simple sketch of a Hurricane Tower is shown in Figure 2. It is also possible to enhance the sea water evaporation process with an evaporation pool, heated by the sun, feeding additional humidity into the system. Additional stages of condensate collectors can be stacked one upon the other and use additional siphons and heat exchangers to feed the cooled freshwater by gravity to successively higher elevations to condense the atmospheric water vapor present in the surrounding region. In theory, these vertical stages may be stacked to higher elevations until the atmospheric pressure becomes too low and/or the temperature of the collected water is greater than a dew point of the surrounding region. Cold Agriculture The same fresh water condensing process can take place in the soil. Dubbed the “BlueGreen Revolution,” this agricultural technology uses cold DOW to create a healthy soil environment suitable for many plant species to grow and thrive in the harshest of tropical, coastal conditions. At Keahole Point, rugged, inexpensive PVC piping was laid in crushed lava covered with composted soil as a medium for plant growth. Chilling the soil causes moisture to condense in the vicinity of root growth, pinpointing delivery of water to the plant without evaporative or drainage losses. In fact, plant roots will grow towards this source of water, and even encircle the piping, maximizing the effect. But that is not all. It seems that the plants actually become part of the DOW system. The cooled soil creates a constant springtime condition, promoting vigorous growth of fruits, vegetables, flowers, and herbs associated with virtually any climate zone. This innovation allows for soil temperature control and plant dormancy, enabling multiple crop production per year. And it requires little, if any, irrigation, as the cold pipes produce abundant freshwater condensation. A sketch of a typical plant using a cold agriculture system is shown in Figure 3. There is relatively little research available on crop production using cold-water agricultural systems. Most of the research has been carried Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 53 FIGURE 3 out by CHC at its NELHA demonstration site. In 2004, a summary of progress was prepared by Marc M. Siah & Associates, Inc., in collaboration with Common Heritage Corporation. Dr. Kent Fleming, an Agricultural Economist at the College of Tropical Agriculture, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, was instrumental in this study. The following, paraphrased from the report, gives a good overview of the ColdAg™ process and its far-reaching applications. CHC scientists have evaluated about 100 different crops over the past 12 years with varying results. Most of the crops tested grew at least fairly well. The relatively few exceptions were primarily those crops, such as watermelons, that require exceptionally high amounts of irrigation. Although traditional irrigation does not work well with cold-water agricultural systems, CHC has experimented with specialized systems that enable growth of crops requiring additional water supplies. Some high-quality crops have already been identified using these methods; these include fruits and vegetables that are harvestable in a relatively short period of time. Much of the early work was derived using anecdotal information on the role of cold in plant sugar and protein production. For example, it was observed that, in temperate climates, most fall fruits have a surface that is ideal in color and texture for heat rejection to a cold atmosphere and that the colder the atmosphere, up to the point of freezing, the sweeter the fruit. It was also noted that cacti, which are not exposed to 54 Marine Technology Society Journal night cold, do not flourish, and that high quality straw mushrooms require a significant period of exposure to extreme cold in the range of 4-6°C (40-43°F). Further, many hydroponics systems are found to require cold nutrient fluids, and lettuce is known to thrive in 38°C (100°F) temperatures as long as the soil is kept cool. At a 1992 workshop sponsored by the University of Hawai’i Sea Grant program and CHC, the significance of the use of low cost cold in agricultural production was explored with particular examination of the effect of temperature differentials between roots and surface on plant physiology. Based on the theories and information from that workshop, CHC experimented with application of cold to the roots of strawberries in its demonstration garden. Through trial and error and a fortuitous, though unplanned-for, period of neglect, the strawberries thrived and the roots particularly sought the cold pipes around which to grow. Subsequently it was discovered that the initial belief that only spring crops would be successful in a microclimate most closely resembling spring was erroneous, and that spring, summer, and fall crops of almost every species enjoyed high quality, unusual sweetness, and rapid growth from the ColdAg™ process. Asparagus plants, for example, were brought through three cycles of growth in less than nine months, a reduction by more than a year of the period between conventional planting and harvesting. It is now recognized that the thermodynamic processes in plant growth play a major role in the transport of phosphates and nitrates to the fruiting and vegetation areas, and that the production of high energy products such as sugar is highly dependent upon temperature differences along the transport path of these nutrients. A simplified model would note that the photosynthesis process begins with the transfer of photon energy to various phosphagens at the site of formation of the biological molecules. The energy of the phosphagens is released as required to anabolic and catabolic enzymes that cut the water molecules and fix carbon and nitrogen. Thus, the sugars that are composed entirely of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen can be manufactured from constituents present in the atmosphere at the level of plant growth. Indeed, nearly all of the energy required for plant production comes from the photons in a process that is essentially isentropic, i.e., frictionless. Thus, the higher the temperature, the greater will be the photosynthetic activity. Even so, only a small portion of the solar insolation is employed in plant growth. One of the limiting factors is the presence or absence of phosphagens at the production site. Phosphorus, which is non-existent in the atmosphere, must come from the soil. It must acquire its potential energy from a thermodynamic process that extracts energy from the differences in temperature in the various process fluids. The one scientific observation of the temperature structure and plant response in the demonstration garden was made for the simple root crop, the carrot. A pipe embedded at approximately 28 cm (11 inches) maintained soil temperatures of 10°C (50°F). Other pipes embedded at about 10 cm (4 inches) established soil temperatures of 14°C (57°F). Daytime surface temperatures were high and in the vicinity of 37°C (98°F). Carrot seeds employing their own internal energy projected initial root and stem structures above and below the ground. The root filaments then very rapidly grew until they reached the point of maximum cold. Thereafter plant production consisted of enlargement of the root and the production of foliage. FIGURE 4 TM System. If the surface temperatures are below the dew point, condensate will appear. This moisture will migrate to the point of maximum density (i.e., the coldest spot in the soil). During the migration, the water will dissolve soil nutrients and carry them in the solution to this coldest spot. There the root acts as a wick carrying heat from the top of the plant down to the root, producing a thermal convection whose flow rate will be a function of the difference in temperature between the root and the plant extremities. If this is the predominant mechanism of transfer of phosphates and nitrates, then this process should be equally beneficial to spring, summer, and fall crops. In particular, the total energy process should lead to the production of high-energy sugar and aromatic molecules. This result was confirmed by taste tests. A few preliminary comparisons of sugars from coldwater agriculture with those from conventional gardens confirm this observation. It is now well established that the application of cold to the root area of crops produces unusually sweet fruit not only in annual but also fall fruits. The grapes shown in Figure 5 were grown at the demonstration garden at NELHA using the ColdAG™ process and crushed lava as a soil substrate. This is one of many examples of success in growing crops that ordinarily do not thrive in tropical climates. It should be noted that while condensate supplies the vast majority of water used by plants, some fresh water is necessary in arid coastal FIGURE 5 areas like Kona to wash salt spray from the ocean off the plants to prevent sun and salt burn on the leaves. However, surface application of water must be done with great care to ensure that the thermodynamic behavior of the ColdAg™ process is not disturbed, that is, a continuous temperature gradient must be maintained between the “fruit and the root.” Other DOW Technologies Unfortunately, although DOW is free and essentially inexhaustible, there is a cost to moving it from the deep ocean to places it can be used. By far, the biggest cost is the pipe, which is a large capital expense in any system. Fortunately, a well-designed installation can last for decades with little or no maintenance. There is a modest cost in moving the water through the pipe, to overcome heat losses from fluid friction. To make the best use of the resource and to reduce the payback period for the pipe expense, a practical and economic system would include multiple uses of the same flow of DOW. Certainly, if a large OTEC system were built, a subsidiary use could begin with freshwater production, possibly using the “waste DOW” of the energy generation process, depending on the temperature and environmental conditions. In many locations, the first use would be seawater air conditioning (SWAC). As mentioned earlier, SWAC has been used effectively in locations such as Bora Bora. In fact, one of the early applications of this technolFall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 55 ogy is still in operation in the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia. In 1983, a system was installed to cool a group of office towers on Purdy’s Wharf at the city harbor. Drawing cold water through a 36 cm (14-inch) pipe directly from the harbor at temperatures as low as 2°C (36°F), the system (including an upgrade in 1989) provides almost all of the cooling needs for the complex’s two 22-story towers and 700,000 sq-ft of space. Titanium heat exchangers are used, handling a maximum cooling load of 2 MW. The system cost $500,000 to develop and install, and saves $250,000 per year in electricity. (Capital costs in this case were low, since the pipe only needed to be laid to a depth of 23 m (75 feet) to get below the 15 m (50 foot) thermocline. Also, a backup conventional air conditioning system is sometimes needed in the fall when the seawater temperature is at maximum, but this use is generally minimal.) In 1998, Eli Hay (collaborator in the development of the Brewer model) built a prototype aluminum heat exchanger, which was tested in place of one of the titanium units. It provided two-thirds of the performance of the titanium unit for only one-tenth of the pressure drop. This means substantially less circulating pump power required for the equivalent performance. The temperature rise in the DOW upon exiting a SWAC system may be small enough that it is still suitable for a SkyWater plant, or depending on design, some fresh DOW can be blended to lower the temperature to an optimum level. After its use in fresh water production is exhausted, the DOW may still be cold enough for ColdAg™, which in some cases can usefully work with input temperatures as high as 16°C (61°F). Thus, a series use of the same DOW can maximize the extraction of cold from the resource before it is returned to the sea. Even further uses are possible, such as aquaculture. DOW is uncontaminated by surface pollutants, nutrient rich, and colder than surface waters, making it ideal for aquacultural use. It is possible to reduce the use of biocides and feed, improving the health, environmental impact, and economics of the process. Some of these techniques have been under investigation at NELHA. 56 Marine Technology Society Journal Finally, there are direct human uses of DOW. It has been suggested by Dr. Craven, founder of CHC, that application of cold to the body under controlled conditions can have health benefits; research is being conducted to substantiate and quantify these claims. And at the Intercontinental Hotel at Bora Bora, one can relax in a spa filled with pristine, nutrient rich (and substantially warmed!) DOW. ing and return on the initial capital investment is growing. Richard Bailey, the farsighted developer of this system, is encouraging the spread of this technology, and CHC hopes to enhance his SWAC system with SkyWater and ColdAg™ capabilities in the near future. An interesting short video describing the Bora Bora system can be found on http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=zTGvPrrkVAA. Current Developments Conclusions Under a research grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, CHC is currently working on the island of Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas to investigate the economic feasibility of a DOW system in that location. It is fitting that such research should be taking place there, near the site of the Marianas Trench, the deepest spot in the world’s oceans. In February of 2007, a CHC team visited Saipan to validate site selection for the investigations, to work with on-island researchers who will set up and operate the experiments, and to meet with local government officials to assess the level of support for such an endeavor. On the latter issue, the team was met with resounding enthusiasm from all parties, including the Governor and the legislature. The need for fresh drinking water is keen, and the ability of farmers to grow new crops that could provide economic opportunities was recognized. Saipan is a key tourist destination for travelers from Korea, China, and Japan, so there is an interest by resorts for specialty garden crops, and even for golf course turf (all of which must be imported for now). In support of this effort, crops are being planted in test gardens both on Saipan and in Hawai’i (Oahu), using chilled water to simulate DOW under controlled conditions. Data from this research will add to the body of knowledge on ColdAg™ and demonstrate the feasibility of growing such crops in the particular conditions of the island. If the capital can be gathered to lay one or more pipes, Saipan can become a great success story in the development of sustainable DOW resources. Meanwhile a success story is already being told in Bora Bora, where DOW is flow- The promise of Deep Ocean Water applications is exciting, especially as other resources become scarce, energy costs increase, and environmental impact concerns grow. Once a source of cold DOW is established, a number of uses can be set up in series, using the ocean’s cold to generate fresh drinking water, enhance agricultural products, and support aquaculture with little cost of operation. Initial demonstration programs over the last decade have shown that these technologies are possible; now, investigations are underway to assess the feasibility of developing full-scale systems in suitable areas of the world. Included in these studies are economic factors, weighing the high capital and low operating costs against other means of production. Another factor, harder to compare, is the sustainability of DOW technologies, since the resource they draw upon is essentially inexhaustible. Possibly the advent of “carbon credits” and related measures of assessing the impact of technology on the environment will help show the merit of DOW applications in this regard. It is expected that the next few years will see large-scale implementations of DOW system, initially focusing on air conditioning with ancillary ColdAg™ gardens and small fresh water units. In time, success of these installations could lead to specialty farms in coastal deserts, and larger arrays of water production systems. Ultimately, Dr. Craven’s vision of a sustainable coastal village integrated with DOW and related technologies could be a reality. Author’s Note This material is based in part upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FG5206NA27211. This report was prepared, in part, as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. References Craven, J.P. 1998. Hurricane Tower Water Desalination Device, U.S. Patent 5,744,008, April 28, 1998. Craven, J.P., et al. 2006. Method and System for Regulating Plant Growth, U.S. Patent 7,069,689, July 4, 2006. Hay, E., Brewer, H.M. and Hay, N. 1992. Small Fresh Water Production Plant for Tropical Areas. July, 1992. IEEE Journal. July, 1992. Siah, M.M. 2004. Marc M. Siah & Associates, Inc., prepared in collaboration with Common Heritage Corporation: Optimization Schemes for a Multi- Product DOWA System. Prepared for: Board of Water Supply, City & County of Honolulu, September 2004. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 57 PAPER Marine Technology, Oceanic Research Activities and Their Integration into the General Framework of International Law AUTHOR ABSTRACT Montserrat Gorina-Ysern Healthy Children–Healthy Oceans Foundation Marine technology is a fundamental component in the conduct of oceanic research activities. This article focuses on three oceanic research activities—ocean exploration, outer continental shelf delimitation and operational oceanography—that provide important benefits to all societies and yet are not well known by the general public. It is suggested that the peripheral status of these activities, by contrast with research impinging on marine mammals, is due to the absence of international disputes since the end of WWII involving oceanic research. This positive development, however, is offset by the development of the law governing oceanic research activities away from a body of legal experts in international law. The marginal regulation of ocean exploration, outer continental shelf delimitation and operational oceanography suffers from definitional, fragmentation and complementarity defects, as well as from the absence of a case law in the field that could assist the international judicial and legal professions, as well as policymakers, oceanographers, and law enforcement agencies in ensuring a greater degree of legal certainty, predictability, and security in the face of important new expansionary claims and new technologies. Introduction S ailing away from the coastline on a clear day one soon perceives that at three nautical miles from shore the contours of the coastline become a hue of pale blues, soft purples and timid lilacs, and the land silhouette is gently reduced in size on the horizon. It makes for the perfect watercolor seascape. This article is concerned with the international legal regulation of marine technologies applied to three oceanic research activities: ocean exploration, outer continental shelf delimitation, and operational oceanography. These activities are conducted beyond 200 nautical miles from shore, in the water column and submerged lands and subsoil underneath. Being rarely depicted in the poetic seascape, these activities are physically out of sight and they have tended to be out of the public mind. A positive feature of oceanic research since the end of WWII is the absence of significant legal disputes requiring judicial or arbitral adjudication. This contrasts with other fields of international law—i.e. human rights and humanitarian law, environmental, natural resources and trade law, telecommunications, patent law, etc.—where legal disputes among international actors have resulted in a rich case law and legal scholarship on the subject matter under dispute. The absence of disputes is a positive feature of international oceanic research activities, but their invisibility has relegated them to the periphery of mainstream international legal analysis. Two factors explain how this happened. First, since the early 1960s, the law of the sea governing oce- 58 Marine Technology Society Journal anic research ceased to be evolved by a body of legal experts such as the International Law Commission (ILC). Instead, developments in the oceanic research field have been governed by binding regimes and non-binding guidelines developed through government negotiated compromises on issues of common international interest dealing with complex infrastructures (facilities, hardware, technical support) for new marine science and technology programs. Secondly, potential legal disputes between oceanic research and other areas of international law—such as international trade in ocean products and services—has evaded scholarly, judicial and arbitral scrutiny for three apparent reasons: a) the highly complex nature of the technologies used and the difficulty for lawyers in translating science jargon into adequate legal definitions for governance purposes; b) the degree of fragmentation of oceanic research governance by reference to other applicable areas of international law— environmental, conservation and biodiversity treaties, international trade and patent law treaties, etc.; and c) incomplete regulation by reference to general principles of international law—as codified, for example, in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In a setting of highly technical, complex and ambitious activity characterized by the absence of commonly agreed legal definitions, as well as fragmented and incomplete legal regulation of activities that are being conducted very far from the mainland, marine technologies applied to oceanic research can thrive, tipping the balance toward industrial and defense interests that drive the international economy in this area, with cooperative science opening up global market and management opportunities with great potential benefit for all societies (see, for example, the implementation of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems [GEOSS] in the context of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the Millennium Development Goals at http://www.noaa.gov/eos.html). As Edmund Gullion forecasted in 1968, “[N]either science nor commerce will stand still while the law evolves or nations bring themselves to negotiate”(Uses of the Seas, 1968 at 6). The question is whether these developments would be best served by conditions of legal certainty, predictability and security. Raising this question in the context of oceanic research is desirable to increase general public and policymakers’ awareness of marine technologies applied to oceanic research activities, to highlight the usefulness of these activities and the benefit of continued public and private funding. In addition, the discussion here seeks to assure oceanographers of the positive value of clear rules of international law in the service of scientific pursuit in remote offshore areas beyond national jurisdiction where law enforcement may not be readily available. Finally, the 2006 final report by the Chair of the ILC, Professor Martii Koskenniemi, on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (UNGA Doc.A/ CN.4/L.682 of 13 March 2006), serves also as a legal reasoning tool in our discussion of issues raised by the application of marine technologies to ocean exploration, outer continental shelf delimitation and operational oceanography. It is hoped that distinguished members of the ILC with an interest in the law of the sea may be persuaded to consider the legal study of oceanic research in its convergence with other areas of international law. Greater ILC involvement through the development of a complete toolbox of legal reasoning techniques applicable to oceanic research activity governance in this area of international law would serve the international legal and judicial professions whenever faced with the unenviable task of resolving future disputes in this complex and multidisciplinary field. A brief outline of the international law applicable to oceanic research activities is provided first, followed by a discussion of relevant definitions, fragmentation and incompleteness issues facing the governance of ocean exploration, outer continental shelf delimitation, and operational oceanography. A chart of maritime jurisdictional zones is provided as a frame of reference for concepts and terminology discussed in the context of oceanic research governance under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Examples are drawn from ocean exploration programs, the work of U.S. government agencies and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf involved with the oceanic research used in the delimitation of the outer continental shelf of the U.S. and other nations, and from the work of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) in its success at developing a non-binding regime for the governance of operational oceanography. International Law Applicable to Oceanic Research Activities The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which entered into force on November 16, 1994, is the main but not the only legal framework for ocean exploration, outer continental shelf delimitation and operational oceanography activities. Contrary to widespread misconception, UNCLOS is universally regarded as a constitution for the world’s oceans and U.S. ratification received a favorable vote by 19 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 25th, 2004 (Moore, 2003). However, a small minority of powerful senators has blocked the required “advice and consent” by the full Senate in spite of strongly worded support by private ocean industries, ocean policy experts, the legal profession, academic scientists, NGOs, government and law enforcement agencies, the Defense Department, the U.S. Navy, and a wide variety of relevant stakeholders (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004), including the current White House administration (http:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/ 20070515-2.html). This support includes the text of UNCLOS as well as the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of UNCLOS and its Annex of July 28 1994 (Deep Sea-Bed Implementing Agreement). The accompanying chart depicts UNCLOS zones within and beyond the maritime control of the coastal nation. In terms of distance, ocean exploration, outer continental shelf delimitation and operational oceanography may take place within areas under coastal state sovereignty—typically a 12 nautical mile territorial sea; or in an area of sovereign rights— generally the water column of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that expands from the outer edge of the 12 to 200 nautical miles seaward and also inclusive of the submerged landmass constituting the continental shelf, to a maximum distance of 350 nautical miles. Usually, ocean exploration, outer continental FIGURE 1 Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 59 shelf delimitation and operational oceanography take place at the outer edge of the submerged landmass and beyond the EEZ water column. Those remote aquatic areas are commonly known as the high seas, where qualified freedoms apply. Within the 12 to 200 nautical miles—and possibly out to 350 nm— under the coastal nation’s maritime control there are qualified high seas freedoms that include the rights of navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and others recognized under customary international law. Beyond those areas of control, the seafloor and the seabed beyond are known in international law as the Area. UNCLOS is set in the context of the United Nations Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice (Adopted June 26th, 1945). Matters not regulated in UNCLOS continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law (UNCLOS Preamble). Disputes arising from the interpretation of UNCLOS provisions are to be resolved by peaceful means (UNCLOS Part XV, Art. 279) as indicated in Art. 33 (1) of the U.N. Charter. These include negotiation, enquiry, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other preferred peaceful means. The law applicable to such dispute resolution methods is to be found in the traditional sources of international law listed in Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: international conventions, international custom, general principles of law, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists. UNCLOS Part VI deals with rules governing the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm (Art. 74.6, 7, 8 and 9). It sets up in Annex II the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, whose work is discussed below. Part XIII (UNCLOS Arts. 238265) deals with the conduct of Marine Scientific Research (MSR), a concept not defined, but generally understood to refer to fundamental oceanographic research—unrelated to commercial exploration of marine natural resources and distinct from defense related research. Part XIII (Art. 246.6) also deals with the conduct of MSR and exploratory operations on the outer continental shelf—beyond 60 Marine Technology Society Journal 200 nm to a maximum limit of 350 nm. In the absence of definitions, a clear separation of these categories of research is difficult in practice and gives rise to convergence with other legal regimes. Defining Oceanic Research Categories Traditionally, the development of the legal rules of international law was carried out by legal scholars from recognized international institutes and associations, through methodologies specific to legal scholarship. Until 1958, ILC jurists were entrusted with the progressive development of the international law of the sea. They prepared and adopted four conventions—the 1958 Geneva Conventions— governing the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the Continental Shelf, the High Seas, and Fisheries and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. The 1958 Geneva Conventions formed the core body of law of the sea rules, now codified in UNCLOS. Then, in the late 1960s, during the de-colonization process, government representatives—not necessarily expert jurists or marine scientists—to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), took over and have retained the development of the law of the sea and other areas of international law. Negotiators may often have expertise in one specific area of governance, but not in another. Coupled with this rapid increase from nearly 60 to nearly 200 nation members to the U.N., a new phenomenon emerged: a very well organized coalition of environmental and conservation interests flooded international fora from the early 1970s onward, seeking a shift from tort-based to precautionary based ocean law governance through tactical and strategic repetition methods aimed at forcing dialogue among stakeholders under pressure from international public opinion. Together with government representatives appearing before U.N. and other specialized agencies these key players have negotiated a considerable body of “soft law” codes and instruments—policies and guidelines that with time may evolve into law. The success of these soft law instruments and agreements depends on whether nation states, through cooperation and practical ac- tion, adhere to and enforce them upon their nationals. In a context of globalization, this development can be regarded as reflecting “the differing pursuits and preferences that actors in a pluralistic (global) society have” (UNGA Doc.A/CN.4/L.682 of 13 March 2006, paragraph 15, page 15). However, as the ILC report notes, the emergence of specialized lawmaking and institution-building “tends to take place with relative ignorance of legislative and institutional activities in adjoining fields and of the general principles and practices of international law. The result is conflicts between rules and rule-systems, deviating institutional practices and, possibly, the loss of an overall perspective on the law” (id. paragraph 8, p. 11). There are an estimated 50,000 treaties registered in the U.N. system, of which 6,000 were adopted in the last century (ILC, 2006, citing Borgen, 2005; Ku, 2001). Disregard for legal regulation in adjoining fields is not just a characteristic of the international law system. In its comprehensive 2004 study, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy highlighted the need to update U.S. federal laws governing marine science and technology to correct the imprecise and inconsistent use of related terminology. The lack of treaty definitions for MSR, as distinct from commercial exploration of marine natural resources and defense-related research, or other forms of oceanic research, is not surprising because UNCLOS lacks specific definitions for key terms such as sovereignty, sovereign rights, jurisdiction, marine environment, and natural resources. Captain J. Ashley Roach (JAGC, USN, Ret.) and Professor Alfred A. Soons (Soons, 1982) have made an exceptional contribution to this area of legal scholarship. Captain Roach distinguishes four categories of marine data collection: MSR, Surveys (including hydrographic and military surveys), Operational Oceanography (including Ocean State Estimation, Weather Forecasting and Climate Prediction), and Exploration and Exploitation of natural resources and underwater cultural heritage (Power Point Presentation, The Rhodes Academy, July 2007, available at http:// www.virginia.edu/colp/rhodes.htm). Captain Roach defines MSR as including “those activities undertaken in the ocean and coastal wa- ters to expand scientific knowledge of the marine environment and its processes.” Exploration and Exploitation of natural resources, whether living or non-living, includes activities carried out for economic exploitation, including the production of energy from the water, currents and winds in the EEZ (Art. 56(1)(a); and the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf, together with living organisms belonging to the sedentary species, at harvestable stage, either immobile on or under the seabed or unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed and the subsoil (Art. 77(4). In the Area, exploration and exploitation refer to marine data collection concerned with solid, liquid and gaseous mineral resources in situ at or beneath the seabed, including polymetallic nodules (Art. 133). Operational oceanography refers to the “routine collection of ocean observations in all maritime zones...used for monitoring and forecasting...[for] near real time transmission...and availability to the public.” Although the definitions provided are very useful, they are the contribution of a most highly qualified publicist and national governments may not necessarily agree in adopting them without a vigorous political and diplomatic negotiating process. Operational Oceanography and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC). The IOC’s Advisory Body of Experts on the Law of the Sea (IOC/ABE-LOS) was established in 1997 to work on Arts. 247, 252 and 251 (UNCLOS Part XIII), dealing with MSR, and on Part XIV, dealing with the Transfer of Marine Technology. Under the strong and expert leadership of Professor Mario Ruivo, Mr. Elie Jarmache, and Dr. Patricio Bernal, delegates to ABE-LOS have been negotiating a “legal framework” for the collection of oceanographic data within the context of UNCLOS. This would consist in a set of non-legally binding guidelines—not amounting to a legal instrument—that may become a “simplified procedure” applicable to operational oceanography carried out as part of IOC programs on the high seas and unrelated to natural resources (IOC/ABE-LOS VII 2007, 3.2.). The ABE-LOS undertakes this work in coordination with the Office of Legal Affairs and the Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea of the United Nations (OLA/ DOALOS: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ index.htm). This negotiation is very important to the U.S. oceanic research community since NOAA’s launching in 2000 of the Argo ocean profiling float network. Argo consists of an international effort for the release of 3,000 oceanographic instruments—profiling floats—designed to drift with ocean currents while taking in situ measurements of ocean temperature, salinity and currents; releasing the data in real time, with the “potential to revolutionize our understanding of the ocean and its effect on weather and climate” (NOAA Legislative Office, 2000). The U.S. position, led by Captain Roach, consistently views operational oceanography as unrelated to the exploration of natural resources and not the conduct of MSR as governed by UNCLOS Part XIII, even in the unlikely scenario that gliders, profilers and floaters could drift from high seas areas into the EEZ of another coastal nation. The position of Argentina is that these activities constitute MSR or a form of MSR and authorization should be obtained for instruments likely to drift into a coastal nation’s EEZ. At the 2006 Malaga meeting ABE-LOS delegates barely managed to discuss 9 paragraphs of the proposed guidelines. However, at the 2007 Gabon meeting, under the leadership of ABE-LOS Chair Mr. Elie Jarmache, delegates achieved considerable success on the definition of terms of reference for the guidelines. According to the current draft, “oceanographic data” refers to “variables and parameters” that include “pressure, sea level, sea level pressure, currents, wind speed and direction, temperature, conductivity/salinity, CO2, oxygen concentration, and partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2)”; but does not include (for the moment at least) pH, water transparency/transmittance, water color, electropotential (pE), nutrient concentration, and chlorophyll (IOC/ ABE-LOS VII, para. 31-34). A “float” is defined as “an autonomous instrument used for collection of oceanographic data, which, when deployed descends to a programmable depth where it remains until, at programmed intervals, it rises to the ocean surface where its position is determined using satellite technologies and...any oceanographic data collected are transmitted via satellite to a data processing center for dissemination to users.” A “surface drifter” is defined as “a buoy which is freely moving in ocean current either at the surface or at predetermined depths close to surface [collecting oceanographic data].” The proposed paragraph adds that “it collects oceanographic data such as surface temperatures and may have additional sensors for collection of other parameters such as sea level pressure or wind speed and direction” [para. 39]. The prospect of a predictable and stable legal framework for operational oceanography negotiated through the IOC/ABE-LOS has a direct impact on the adoption of measures for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, its habitats, and the safety and resilience of coastal communities against environmental hazards. However, the members of the IOC approach the issue mainly from a technical perspective. A legitimate question can therefore be raised here whether the legal regime for autonomous instruments used to collect oceanographic data would be governed by “technical streamlining and coordination” or, for coherence purposes, it would be desirable for a body such as the ILC to consider the convergence of this new field of regulation with other areas of international law, as discussed below (UNGA Doc.A/CN.4/L.682 of 13 March 2006, paragraph 9, at 12). Fragmentation of Oceanic Research Governance by Reference to Other Related International Law Disciplines Oceanic research activities governed by UNCLOS, particularly Part XIII, may also be governed under related international law disciplines such as intellectual property, environmental, conservation, biodiversity, natural resources and international trade regimes. To illustrate the point, treaties bearing directly on oceanic research may include the following: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Budapest Treaty on the International Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure, International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, European Patent Treaty, Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 61 Strasbourg Agreement on International Patent Classification, Universal Copyright Convention, and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property which would apply directly to compilations of scientific data (Art. 10), confidential and undisclosed information (Art. 39), and patents over inventions involving micro-organisms, micro-biological and non-biological processes (Art. 27.3). Other treaties and guidelines bearing on oceanic research governance under UNCLOS may include instruments being developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), and several International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions and guidelines dealing with the protection of marine habitat from pollution, including the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, London Dumping Convention and its Guidelines and Standards for the Removal of Offshore Installations and Structures on the Continental Shelf and in the Exclusive Economic Zone; a range of treaties and protocols adopted under the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP); the Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol; the Convention on Biological Diversity and a plethora of instruments pursuant to the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED); the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna, the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling and a host of Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) related conventions dealing with fisheries research and sustainable fisheries. Ocean exploration and outer continental shelf delimitation offer an opportunity to discuss definitional and fragmentation issues and will be examined in turn. Ocean Exploration International ocean exploration is viewed as a journey with a remarkable potential for discovery of marine natural products with pharmaceutical potential, vast new mineral and energy resources, new ecosystems, surprising new species and organisms, historical artifacts, and answers to the physical factors responsible for changes in climate (National Research 62 Marine Technology Society Journal Council, 2003). One area of particular interest is marine biomedical research, where the application of genetic engineering techniques and biotechnology to a wholesale DNA sequencing of marine flora and fauna, with the corresponding international patenting and licensing activity emerging from these rolling scientific and commercial developments in ocean exploration has been unprecedented. The application of digital technologies to large data and metadata sets arising from MSR, marine bio-surveying and bio-prospecting, and other oceanographic research activities in the biological, physical and chemical fields—where genetic research is very active and transfers of genetic material among countries are common—has led organizations such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), or the Census of Marine Life (CoML), to adopt policies and data management protocols (publication and data sharing issues), aimed at balancing “public domain” considerations with restrictions on the free flow of data. Restrictions on access are based on legislation that protects sensitive, commercial, and data subject to exclusive proprietary uses that require prior written permission before their release. The Fish Barcode of Life (FishBol, 2005), “a valuable public resource in the form of an electronic database that contains DNA barcodes, images, and geospatial coordinates of examined specimens,” is a very good example of this fine balance. The governance of ocean exploration activities raises at least three important “fragmentation” issues: definitional, distinguishability, and complementarity. In the little space available here it is only possible to very briefly outline them. Regarding what legal regime should apply depending on the defining nature of the activity, Reid G. Adler, formerly at the J. Craig Venter Institute, has suggested in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that “bio-prospecting is the exploration of biodiversity for potentially available genetic and biomedical resources,” whereas “bio-surveying does not screen for commercially useful products.” In his view surveys are important “to find out what biodiversity exists, its value and importance, and what is endangered.” In this light biosurveying allows researchers to set “targets for conservation and sustainable use” it further “reveals hidden biogeochemical processes” and “provides tools for monitoring climate change, pollution, etc” (Adler, 2004). Similarly, Drs. Newman and Cragg of the Cancer Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health, suggest that “bio-discovery is the scientific investigation of the utility of the natural environment as leads to agents that can affect various biological processes that may include human and animal diseases, food production and general scientific knowledge that at the moment may have not obvious utility” (Newman and Cragg, 2003). The emphasis of these definitions is on the preeminent role of the CBD at the expense of the governance role of UNCLOS Part XIII dealing with MSR. Only recently, the U.N. Secretary General’s report on Oceans and Law of the Sea has tentatively conceded that “Marine scientific research is often a means of accessing marine genetic resources. In this regard, subject to article 311 of UNCLOS, which defines the relation between UNCLOS and other conventions and international agreements, the rules and procedures related to the consent for marine scientific research under UNCLOS, as outlined, and the conditions for access to genetic resources established by States pursuant to Art. 15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, could be complementary” (emphasis added. See UNGA Doc. A/62/66 of 12 March 2007 at paragraph 214). The report does not mention that Art. 22 of the CBD provides that its provisions “shall not affect the rights and obligations of any Contracting Party deriving from any existing international agreement [i.e. UNCLOS], except where the exercise of those rights and obligations would cause a serious damage or threat to biological diversity,” and it continues “Contracting Parties shall implement this Convention with respect to the marine environment consistently with the rights and obligations of States under the law of the sea.” Finally, with the introduction of a distinction between the phenotype and the genotype of marine fauna and flora for genetic engineering as well as for patent application purposes, a great legal confusion has developed with regard to whether the same creature—a piece of coral, a sea cucumber, an algae, or a colony of micro-organisms associ- ated in symbiosis with the former—is a natural resource or not under UNCLOS. This issue of indistinguishability between marine flora and fauna, irrespective of how terminology is applied to each component, is relevant in overcoming a clear fragmentation between international instruments bearing on the governance of marine natural resources, genetic resources, protected species, biodiversity, and leads or agents for the biomedical field. Intellectually and intuitively, a rose remains a rose irrespective of how it is called—stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus (cited in Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose). The law establishes many legal fictions that may or may not correspond with the reality of the physical world. However, it is not implausible to suggest that an isolated molecule of a chemical compound extracted from coral remains a natural resource, albeit not in the raw, and its economic use is a potential benefit from that resource. The regulation of the process by which the resource is obtained cannot trump the regulation of access to and ownership of the resource without a clear set of rules providing for such hierarchy (Gorina-Ysern and Jones, 2006). The legal answers to these issues of fragmentation among instruments may determine whether international law obligations arising under one regime are breached under another: Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, UNCLOS, CITES and/or the CBD patent treaties, TRIPS, and various other potentially applicable instruments (Gorina-Ysern and Jones, 2006). ICES and CoML, among many other institutions, need expert legal guidance in the development of policies that integrate new marine technologies applied to old oceanic research techniques, on the one hand, with regulations such as international treaties dealing with co-authorship, joint ownership and patentable inventions. Potential disputes before national courts may not be easily resolved even in the presence of international Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), as these are usually drafted in vague and general terms not easily recognized in domestic courts (Westkamp, 2006). WIPO may assist nations in the adoption of legal guidelines and binding treaties in the field of international patents and copyrights. The Informal Open-Ended Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea (ICP a.k.a. UNICPOLOS) can assist nations with the institutional and regulatory integration of various fields of activity. However, only an expert body of legal scholars such as the ILC can iron out the various issues of hierarchy and compatibility among different areas of international regulation. Outer Continental Shelf Delimitation The delimitation of the outer continental shelf of a nation requires applying a range of marine technologies that includes geologic, geophysical, aeromagnetic, bathymetric, seismic reflection and refraction data collection. The U.S. continental shelf and EEZ include approximately 3 million square miles of ocean space. In the near future, the U.S. may determine the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its baselines to include huge economic resources lying in the northeast U.S. Atlantic (NEA–Georges Bank), southeast U.S. Atlantic (SEA–Blake Plateau), Gulf of Mexico (GOM), eastern Gulf of Alaska (EGA), Aleutian Basin/Bearing Sea (ABS), Arctic/Chukchi Sea (ACS), and the islands comprising western Pacific trust territories (WPI) (U.S. Geological Survey). The U.S. government has evolved a set of UNCLOS-consistent methods and procedures for identifying domestic and international maritime limits by determining the baseline from which the breadth of its maritime zones are measured by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service, Office of the Coast Survey. These are the primary agencies entrusted with the depiction of the U.S. Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, Exclusive Economic Zone, and Continental Shelf (with regard to offshore lease blocks, and revenue sharing boundaries of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act). Policies for depiction of outer limit lines on, and the marine science required for the production of, nautical charts by NOAA (the official charting agency in the U.S.), are designed to minimize potential confusions, disagreements or conflicting versions of maritime limits (NOAA Coastal Service Center). Within these limits nation States exercise various degrees of sovereignty, sovereign rights, jurisdiction and control over maritime areas of the coast. Precise depiction of the outer limit of maritime zones on readily available charts is important also to preserve the rights of foreign vessels to exercise recognized qualified high seas freedoms within the 200 nautical mile U.S. EEZ. There are currently 25 situations where the maximum permissible limit of maritime zones of the U.S. and neighboring nation States overlap. Under UNCLOS, these claims must be submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for consideration. UNCLOS Art. 76.5 recognizes that the outer limits of a nation’s continental shelf “either shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baseline...or shall not exceed 100 nautical miles from the 2,500 meter isobath, which is the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters.” The U.S. has ten years to make its submission from the date it accedes to the 1982 UNCLOS. The current inability of the U.S. to participate in the early rule and guideline formation of the CLCS was highlighted in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s final recommendations. The first submission to the CLCS was made by the Russian Federation on December 20, 2001. On February 28, 2002, the U.S. Department of State, using extensive oceanographic research by NOAA and the USGS, opposed the methods used by the Russian Federation seeking to expand the outer limit of its Arctic continental shelf natural prolongation beyond 200 nautical miles by including the AlphaMendeleev, the Lomonosov, and other submarine ridges, contrary to the U.S. government understanding of UNCLOS Art. 76.3 [“The continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the land mass of the coastal State....It does not include the deep ocean floor with its oceanic ridges or the subsoil thereof”]. The U.S. submission underlined the importance of promoting stability of relations in the oceans and preserving the integrity of UNCLOS (Negroponte, 2002), and suggested that the CLCS “needs further data, analysis and debate,” before making a recommendation favorable to Russian Federation aspirations. To date, Brazil (2004), Australia (2004), Ireland (2005), New Zealand (2006), France, Spain, and the United Kingdom (jointly in 2006), Norway (2006), and Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 63 France (2007) have made such submissions. They have used extensive oceanographic research to demonstrate that their expansionary claims comply with Art. 76 of UNCLOS (CLCS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ clcs_new/clcs_home.htm). The U.S. has reacted to the submissions by Brazil and by Australia. It is expected that more than 12 additional submissions may be made between 2007 and 2009, and the U.S. is monitoring the oceanic research used to justify these maritime expansions very closely. Although the concept of an EEZ water column is universally embraced and has crystallized at international law, many stakeholders in the law of the sea field are still confused by the legitimate power of nations to claim and exercise sovereign rights for resource exploration, exploitation, conservation and management purposes, as well as jurisdiction over the conduct of MSR in that water column. In view of lingering confusion, it can be forecasted that an additional 150 nm outer continental shelf land mass expansion ranging from 200 to 350 nm from the baseline will be a difficult concept to regulate, govern, and enforce. There are many industrial, environmental and other interests at stake. Their coordination through political compromise may be elusive. Ocean research activities associated with living and non-living resource exploration projects on the outer edge of the expanding continental shelf of nations—the submerged land—suffer from similar definitional complexities as those indicated above. Oceanic research is clearly used as a very important element in the formulation of territorial claims over the outer continental shelf, in spite of the principle of UNCLOS Art. 241 to the effect that MSR activities “shall not constitute the legal basis for any claim to any part of the marine environment or its resources”. The use of science in the service of territorial claim consolidation is not a new phenomenon, as observed by Professor Gillian Triggs with regard to Antarctic claims (Triggs, 1984; Triggs and Prescott, 2007). The use of precise definitions for oceanic research categories can determine the legal principles and governance regimes applicable and play a key role in determining whether payments and contributions under UNCLOS Art. 82 must be made to the Inter- 64 Marine Technology Society Journal national Seabed Authority on the dates specified following the production of oil and gas, minerals, and other non-living resources. The increasing pressure to regulate the Area’s genetic resources—questioning their apparent status as high seas resources open to anyone’s access—is likely to also trigger definitional, fragmentation and complementarity issues (Armas Pfirter, 2006; Leary, 2007). In his 2007 report, U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Allen observes: “The ad-hoc development of maritime regimes has resulted in a patchwork approach to maritime governance that contains gaps and lacks integration. While such shortcomings may have been manageable in the past, they are of concern today” (Allen, 2007). Of particular concern is the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap and the potential it would open for access to the estimated one-quarter or more of the world’s oil and gas resources. This would lead to considerable ocean research activity by nations bordering the Arctic in pursuit of offshore energy production opportunities in an ecologically sensitive environment. Oceanic Research Impact on Marine Mammals Though it was suggested in the introduction that oceanic research in offshore areas attracts little attention, activities which produce loud sounds thought to be capable of having an effect on marine mammals and other species have sometimes had the exact opposite reaction. Since the adoption in 1946 of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), both whale research and oceanic research that could harm whales and other marine mammals have been the focus of public opinion campaigns that have marginalized those engaged in such oceanic research. In the U.S. a very strong environmental interest lobby has used the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) over the last three decades to target litigation and public relations campaigns against seismic profiling, drilling and activities related to offshore oil and gas developments and major telemetry experiments, such as the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC). The latter consists of the application of acoustic signals to the study of the oceans (Worcester and Munk, 2004). The MMPA (1972 as Amended), places a moratorium on the “taking and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products” except where a permit has been issued. The term “taking” means “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill...any marine mammal,” or attempting to do so (Definitions 16 U.S.C. 1362 s.13). The term “harassment” means “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild” (Definitions id., at 18(A)(i) referred to as Level A harassment); or to disturb “....by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (Definitions id. at 18 (A)(ii), also regulated as Level B harassment). These definitions are highly imprecise and have caused ongoing dissatisfaction among ocean scientists and the concerned stakeholder groups. First, the range implied in the “potential to injure” could mean that any activity with a detectable impact amounts to harassment. Similarly, the term “disruption of behavioral patterns” may relate to activities that are not adverse and therefore some experts call for new definitions that would include the terms “biologically significant or meaningful disruption,” that is statistically or quantitatively significant to the survival and reproduction of the species protected, rather than just detectable due to minor changes in marine mammal behavior (Marine Mammal Commission, 2007; personal communication with Dr. Bob Gisiner and Mr. Mike Gosliner, Sept. 22nd, 2007). Since the MMPA sets out special measures and exceptions for military readiness activity, a brief commentary is in line. Since the early 1990s, the Natural Resources Defense Council (http://www.nrdc.org) has initiated five lawsuits to halt the Surveillance Towed Array Sonar System, Low Frequency Active sonar (SURTASS LFA, in Buck and Calvert, 2007). SURTASS LFA is a U.S. Navy system for the tracking of new classes of quiet diesel and nuclear powered submarines (Hofman, 2004). In October 2004 the European Parliament, reacting to increased “scientific and public concerns” over documented and recurrent mortalities of cetaceans—i.e. two or more marine mam- mals, not mother and calf—in various islands off west Africa, North America and northwest coast of the U.S., associated with the use of high-intensity mid-frequency active sonar, adopted a resolution establishing a European Union-wide moratorium “on the deployment of high-intensity active naval sonar until a global assessment of their cumulative environmental impact on marine mammals, fish and other marine life is completed” (European Parliament, 2004). The moratorium is based European Union law, UNCLOS, CBD, ICRW, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, and various Council Directives, Commission statements, petitions, its rules of procedure, the precautionary principle, the concept of sustainability, the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the integrated and regional approach methods, and other methods covering strategic marine spatial planning for the whole European Union continental shelf. Among other actions, the moratorium calls for the development of alternative technologies. In the U.S., on January 23, 2007, the Department of Defense granted the Navy a two year exemption from MMPA requirements for use of acoustic anti-submarine and anti-mine activities during military exercises off all U.S. coasts. It has been argued that the reasons for DOD granting the exemption are linked to specific U.S. sonar readiness needs and training exercises planned for the near future. These operations carry a set of conditions that the Navy must meet at the end of that two year exemption. Furthermore, the Federal Court ruled that the exemption does not affect Navy’s ESA and NEPA obligations, so there is some room for conjecture about how that will translate into actions by the Navy to assess risk and mitigate it. In sum, the highly visible and complex field of oceanic research with potential to harm marine mammals and other species faces two colossal challenges: to balance national security interests and to develop new technologies that are effective in their goals and safe for wildlife in their performance. In their comprehensive 2003 study, Wartzok, Popper, Gordon and Merrill concluded that “[O]bservations concern- ing the effects of ocean noise on marine mammals are limited,” and they found “no documentary evidence of ocean noise being the direct physiological agent of marine mammal death under any circumstances, although there is a clear causal connection between mid-range tactical sonar and stranding of beaked whales.” In addition to calls for more research in the field to determine the factors that affect the response of marine mammals to acoustic disturbance (Merrill et al., 2004), there are also calls for an international umbrella treaty to regulate ocean noise as a form of trans-boundary pollution. This approach in all of its uses would require two things. First, extensive a priori oceanic research activity for the collection of data to determine a) what level of noise is generated and the nature of the generator, b) what level of noise is transmitted and what medium is used for the transmission, and c) what level of noise is received by the recipient. For example, statistical tables based on existing research data should be elaborated in order to identify the frequency of the sounds currently generated in Hz and kHz and the impact on these sounds on humans (i.e. divers), fish, marine mammals and other species. The treaty would have to identify the source levels of the noise in Decibel units appropriate to the type of sound to express the intensity of a sound wave. Data should also be provided on the maximum safe received sound pressure level at the recipient, as a function of the length of exposure to the sound (Personal communication with Mr. Angus Lugsdin, Coda Octopus Group, Inc.). Secondly, it would require reconciling fragmented norms incorporating the principles of reparation and restrain from environmental damage, scattered in UNCLOS, CBD, ICRW, UNEP and IMO pollution related treaties and guidelines. Additional norms would include regional agreements such as ASCOBANS, the Arctic Council and NATO, and the ISA as it consider the impact on marine mammals of outer continental shelf expansions around the globe giving rise to increases in oceanic research activities bearing on oil and gas exploration (McCarthy, 2001). Incomplete Regulation of Oceanic Research Activities Few experts outside the narrow field of individuals legally trained in international law would appreciate the impact that the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) has on the governance of ocean exploration, outer continental shelf delimitation, and operational oceanography. In the little remaining space, it would be futile to try to do justice to the substance of this convention, but suffice it to say that it lays down some of the major ground rules on treaty formation, reservations, relationships among parties and non-parties, distinction between legal obligations entered into at signature, ratification and accession, compliance through good faith, invalidity, termination, breach and suspension. The VCLT is one source of international law applicable to oceanic research activities governed by treaty. Other ground rules of international law are equally applicable to oceanic research activities governed by soft law instruments and guidelines. In the presence of such definitional complexities and regime fragmentation, it seems only desirable that a body of legal experts such as the ILC, would include in its agenda the thorough study of developments in this field since WWII. Conclusions Ocean technologies have played and will continue to play a major role in the conduct of the three oceanic research activities discussed. The absence of international disputes in the past, the absence of a case law in the field, and the great expansion of transnational activity arising from enlargement of outer continental shelf claims relying on various forms of oceanic research, are factors that postulate in favor of a cautious approach to the field that includes additional funding for valuable activities at the same time that legal research into their international regulation, governance and enforcement is also effectively funded. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 65 References Adler, R.G. 2004. Lessons from Sequencing the Human Genome: What’s Applicable to Environmental Genomics and Benefit Sharing? Power Point Presentation to GSAC XVI, Washington DC, Sept. 30, 2004. Allen, T.W. 2007. The U.S. Coast Guard Strategy for Maritime Safety, Security and Stewardship, Washington DC, January 2007, 60 pp. Available at http://www.uscg.mil/ comdt/speeches/docs/CGS-Final.pdf. Armas Pfirter, F., 2006. Legal Implications Related to the Management of Seabed Living Resources in the Area under UNCLOS. Available at http://www.globaloceans.org/ globalconferences/2006/pdf/FridaArmas-Pfirter.pdf Borgen, C. J., 2005. Resolving Treaty Conflicts. Georgetown Int’l L. Rev. 37. Buck, H. E. and K. Calvert. 2007. Active Military Sonar and Marine Mammals: Events and References. CRS Report for Congress, updated February 12, 2007. Census of Marine Life (CoML), http:// www.coml.org. Comments of the United States of America on the “Draft Practical Guidelines of IOC, within the Context of UNCLOS for the Collection of Oceanographic Data by Specific Means (Second Draft)” Contained in Document IOC/ABE-LOS VI/8, 20 February 2006. March 7, 2006. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/ clcs_home.htm. European Parliament Resolution on the Environmental Effects of High-Intensity Active Naval Sonars, Thursday, 28 October 2004, Strasbourg (P6_TA(2004)0047; B6-0089/ 2004) available at http:// www.europarl.europa.edu/ Fish-Bol, 2005. Workshop Report, Ontario, Canada, August 26, 2005. Available at http:// www.fishbol.org/PDF/FISHBOL_Workshop_Report_August_26th_2005.pdf. 66 Marine Technology Society Journal Gorina-Ysern, M. 1998. Marine Scientific Research as the Legal Basis for Intellectual Property Claims? Marine Policy 22(4/5):337-57 Leary, D.K. 2007. International Law and the Genetic Resources of the Deep Sea, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Gorina-Ysern, M. 2003. An International Regime for Marine Scientific Research, Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, Inc. 668 pp [currently at http://www.brill.nl/ default.aspx?partid=18&pid=28006] McCarthy, E. M. 2001. International Regulation of Transboundary Pollutants: The Emerging Challenge of Ocean Noise. Ocean & Coastal L. J. 6:257. Gorina-Ysern, M. and J.H. Jones. 2006. International Law of the Sea, Access and Benefit Sharing Agreements, and the Use of Biotechnology in the Development, Patenting and Commercialization of Marine Natural Products as Therapeutic Agents. Ocean Y.B. New York: 20:221-281. Gullion, E. (editor) 1968. Uses of the Seas. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Hofman, R. 2004. Marine Sound Pollution: Does It Merit Concern? Mar Technol Soc J. 37(4):66-77. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the UNESCO, Advisory Body of Experts on the Law of the Sea (IOC/ABE-LOS). http://ioc3.unesco.org/abelos/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view &id=15&Itemid=29. -IOC/ABE-LOS VI meeting of 2006. -IOC/ABE-LOS VII meeting of 2007. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). 2006. Data Policy 2006, available at http://www.ices.dk/Datacentre/ Data_Policy_2006.pdf. International Law Commission (ILC). 2000. Fifty-Second Session, available at http:// www.un.org/law/ilc/. Ku, Ch., 2001. Global Governance and the Changing Face of International Law (ACUNS Keynote Paper). Koskenniemi, M. 2006. Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (UNGA Doc.A/CN.4/L.682 of 13 March 2006). Marine Mammal Commission. 2007. Marine Mammals and Noise. A Sound Approach to Research and Management. A Report to Congress from the Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, Maryland, March 2007. Minerals Management Service, http://www.mms.gov. Moore, J.N. 2003. Senate Advice and Consent to the Law of the Sea Convention. Urgent Unfinished Business. Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Oct. 14, 2003, http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/ testimony/2003/MooreTestimony031014.pdf. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.legislative.noaa.gov http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Archives/ 2000/informersep2800.htm (Sept.28, 2000). http://www.csc.noaa.gov/mbwg/htm/ minut11_13_06.pdf http://www.csc.noaa.gov/mbwg/htm/ cad_mar.htm National Research Council. 2003. Exploration of the Seas. Voyage into the Unknown. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Negroponte, J.D. 2002. Letter to Mr. Hans Corell, Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs at the United Nations, NY (February 28, 2002). Available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/ submissions_files/rus01/ CLCS_01_2001_LOS__USAtext.pdf. Newman, D.J. and G.M. Cragg. 2003. The NCI’s Marine Biodiscovery Programs. Natural Products Branch, Developmental Therapeutic Program, NCI-Frederick, Maryland, USA. (Power Point Presentation). Roach, A.J. 2007. Marine Data Collection. Power Point Presentation to the Rhodes Academy of International Law, 5 July 2007. Soons, A.H.A. 2006. Marine Scientific Research and the Law of the Sea (1982); The Legal Regime of Marine Scientific Research: Current Issues. Power Point Presentation to the 30th Virginia Law of the Sea Conference. Dublin, July 2006. Triggs, G. 1984. Australian Sovereignty in Antarctica: Traditional Principles of Territorial Acquisition Versus “A Common Heritage” in Australia’s Antarctic Policy Options. Harris, S. ed. 29-66. Triggs, G. and Prescott, V., Territorial Boundaries: International Law, Geography and Politics (Brill, USA forthcoming 2007). U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Washington DC. 522 pp. with Annexes. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), http:// www.usgs.gov/ Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors Affecting the Response of Marine Mammals to Acoustic Disturbance. Mar Technol Soc J. 37(4):6-15. Wegelein, F.H.Th. 2005. Marine Scientific Research. The Operation and Status of Research Vessels and Other Platforms in International Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Westkamp, G. 2007. Research Agreements and Joint Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights in Private International Law. Int Rev Intel Prop Comp Law. 37(6):637-770. Wilson, S. 2000. Launching the Argo Armada. Taking the ocean’s pulse with 3,000 freeranging floats. Oceanus Magazine. Available at http://www.whoi.edu/ page.do?pid=12555&tid=282&cid=2429. Worcester, P. and W. Munk. 2004. The Experience with Ocean Acoustic Tomography. Mar Technol Soc J. 37(4):78-82. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 67 PAPER The Sensor Revolution: Benefits and Challenges for the Marine Technical Workforce AUTHORS ABSTRACT Liesl Hotaling Beacon Institute Sensors are revolutionizing the way that we study, explore, and utilize our oceans. The continued development, operation, and expansion of sensors and sensor networks will require a workforce well prepared in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) skills. Solid preparations in STEM skills are critical to the marine workforce and to other sectors of the economy. National reports and international test scores indicate that these skills are currently lagging in U.S. students, which presents a challenge to the technical workplace. Using sensors and the data produced as an engaging mechanism to teach STEM skills is one way to meet this challenge. Students armed with STEM skills and the motivation to apply those skills in careers that involve sensor development, operations, and data analysis will provide lasting benefits to society and the global economy. Deidre Sullivan Jill Zande MATE Center I. Introduction – The Sensor Revolution T echnology revolutions have enabled science, industry, and military applications and transformed society. In the 1980s, the personal computer revolution placed computing at the average citizen’s fingertips and permeated virtually every sector of the economy. In the 1990s, the Internet revolution provided connections with an information web that spans the planet. This decade has ushered in the next revolution, one that is connecting the Internet to the physical world; in effect, the sensor revolution is giving the world its first electronic nervous system (National Science Foundation, 2005). With sensors deployed and installed on the Earth and in space (e.g. satellites, weather stations, ocean buoys), environmental conditions are monitored like never before. With the world population at 6.5 billion and growing, the corridors of hospitable living conditions can change rapidly—in a matter of minutes with a tsunami, over a matter of hours with a hurricane, or over decades with sea level rise. Sustained sensor networks are able to monitor short-term and longterm changes on Earth and, when coupled with sophisticated models, can be utilized as early warning systems and to predict future environmental changes. Real-time information from sensor networks can guide decision making in research, military, business, and government. For example, scientists can select optimum locations to deploy instrumentation, ships can steer clear of storms, offshore oil and gas companies can adjust production schedules, and governments can evacuate threatened areas. 68 Marine Technology Society Journal A. Sensors in Society The use of sensors in modern society is increasingly pervasive. From highly sophisticated medical applications to self-flushing toilets, examples of sensors in society surpass any one discipline or industry. The wide range of applications and multidisciplinary nature of sensor research can have interesting and surprising results. For example, researchers from the University of Glasgow and Shell Global Solutions teamed up to design a sensor to detect ethane as a method of identifying oil and gas deposits, which leak trace amounts of hydrocarbons (Hirst et al., 2004). Medical researchers from the University of Dundee saw a connection to medical research, which had revealed that, as part of its response to cancerous cells, the human body produces small amounts of ethane that can be detected in the breath. Medical, geological and physics researchers worked together to repurpose the technology into a quick and non-invasive screening tool for detecting lung cancer. Many such innovations are a result of collaborative research. B. Observing our Oceans Marine research increasingly relies on the convergence of traditional marine disciplines and technology. Distributed networks of equipment (sensors, satellites) and researchers (scientists, engineers) from a variety of disciplines are required to effectively carry out comprehen- sive, large-scale studies and resolve complex issues such as marine fisheries and ocean weather and climate. The rapid distribution of realtime and forecast information to both expert user groups (researchers, technicians, stakeholders, emergency management decision makers) and non-expert audiences (public, stakeholders) is critical to enabling informed decisions that can affect navigation, resource management, and recreation. In addition, this data can be integrated into early warning systems for coastal floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, dams, energy consumption, beach closures, harmful algal blooms, and more. C. Use of Sensors in Industry Sensors are used extensively in the marine industry. Embedded sensors in ship hulls are an example that integrates multidisciplinary research from the construction and aerospace industries. Hull sensor monitoring systems have a number of applications, “which can be summarized in the context of the lifecycle of the vessel, starting with a full-scale verification of the structural design and the building process and ending with retirement when the hull shows fatigue” (Wang et al., 2001). These embedded sensors have significantly improved the understanding of stresses and strains sustained by the hulls. The collection of real-time data has enabled real-time understanding of critical situations that may lead to hull failure. Naval architecture students, manufacturers, and captains alike benefit from and utilize this knowledge to improve hull design, fabrication, operation, and safety at sea. Sensors are also used in the exploration for natural resources, such as the identification of potential locations of oil and gas deposits. For example, data collected by sensors on remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles (ROVs/AUVs) are helping to sustain a supply of crude oil for heating, lighting, and transportation. D. Military Applications of Sensor Technology The military was an early adopter of sensor technology. Whether deployed by technicians, trained dolphins, or underwater robots, the military has relied and continues to rely on sensors to gather sensitive and critical data to inform missions. For example, the Navy’s “Battlespace on Demand” depends on the ability of on-scene oceanographers and meteorologists and in situ sensors to gather environmental data in the battlespace and relay it to centers where supercomputers and technical experts fuse, process, and return it as actionable knowledge for use by the war fighter (Byus, 2006). A number of sensor-related technologies developed largely with military funding are used for civilian applications. For example, in addition to supporting offshore oil and gas exploration and production, ROVs and AUVs are used to map waterways and inspect bridges, helping to ensure safe navigation and transportation. II. Preparing the Workforce for the Sensor Revolution A. The Need for Change With the sensor revolution comes the need for a workforce that can design, build, operate, maintain, and utilize data from sensor networks. However, the multidisciplinary, technology-based approach needed to ensure workforce preparedness is not always reflected in our educational programs (Sullivan et al., 2006). Students who over-specialize in any one subject to the exclusion of others, or who have not developed appropriate technical knowledge and skills, may have difficulty find- TABLE 1 ing jobs upon graduation from two- or fouryear colleges. The ability of the 21st century marine technology workforce to remain competitive relies upon an ability to perform effectively in multidisciplinary and technologyintensive settings. The workforce needed to support the sensor revolution also requires an ability to analyze and interpret data; troubleshoot and think critically to resolve technical and environmental issues; and effectively communicate complex ideas to a broad range of audiences (see Table 1). B. Facing a STEM Crisis and a Graying Workforce Developing and maintaining such a workforce relies on innovative educational programs that prepare workforce professionals at a variety of levels and in a variety of environmental and technical fields (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004). Programs that use technology as a way to teach STEM skills are critical to preparing a workforce that can support the ocean economy and, in the larger picture, to improving STEM skills overall. These types of programs and other learning opportunities that require students to both comprehend and apply STEM skills are especially critical since trends reported by the National Science Board show that there are not enough students in the pipeline today to support the STEM workforce of tomorrow (NSB 2003, 2004, 2006). This shortage of potential future technical professionals poses a significant limiting factor to the development and advancement of the all of sectors of the economy that rely on strong STEM skills, including the marine sector concerned with sensors and sensor networks. The graying trend in the marine workforce adds to the urgency of training new technical professionals (Piktialis & Morgan, 2003); the majority of technical professionals currently working in the offshore marine industry are over the age of 50 (Streeter, 2005). The looming retirement issue aside, employers in the offshore industry in particular are having trouble filling existing positions with qualified candidates. According to recruiting managers for Oceaneering International, a major contractor to the offshore oil and gas industry, ROV companies are finding it difficult to locate trained, competent technicians to support an ever-growing market; the current demand for skilled technicians is at an all-time high (Gallien, 2007). This problem is further compounded by the widespread shortage of workers armed with strong STEM skills, since the marine workforce cannot look to other, closelyrelated disciplines as a source of qualified, or at the very least, trainable personnel. Attracting, developing, and retaining a workforce with competencies that support ocean activities is critical to meeting the needs of today and tomorrow (Department of Commerce, 2007). C. Educational Community Response 1. Addressing Workforce Recruitment and Career Preparation Industry, military, government, and academic communities are responding to this crisis by encouraging their members to engage in continuing education experiences. The undergraduate and graduate secondary education community is responding by developing academic programs and course offerings that focus on marine technical issues, including sensor technologies and data use. For example, Rutgers University is providing undergraduate and graduate students with hands-on trainFall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 69 ing experience and operational oceanography credentials. Included within the university’s Masters in Operational Oceanography program are courses that specialize in sensors and sensor networks used in ocean observatories. However, educational efforts must reach further down and up the pipeline to truly address the lagging STEM skills and workforce needs. A wide range of engaging learning opportunities that encourage students of all ages to hone their skills and potentially consider a STEM career are required. A critical first step is to increase student awareness of STEM career options and provide students with good, relevant, easily-accessible information about how to prepare for these careers. One effort focused on information dissemination is being led by the Centers of Ocean Science Education Excellence (COSEE) California and the Marine Advanced Technology Education (MATE) Center. OceanCareers.com (www.oceancareers.com) is a web site devoted to gathering and synthesizing the best information available to define and describe ocean-related careers and their relationship to the ocean economy and workforce trends. The site provides students with answers to questions such as: What careers allow me to work in and around the ocean?, What knowledge and skills will I need to enter these careers?, How much might I make and who will hire me?, Where can I go to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills?, and Which professional societies can provide more information and guidance? Armed with this information, students can make informed decisions about their educational pathways, pursuing programs and learning opportunities that provide the skills and networks that provide the support for entry and success in the global, technology-rich workplace. 2. Addressing the Need for Real-World Learning Experiences Learning opportunities that integrate cutting-edge technologies such as sensors into scenarios based on authentic workplace experiences are important mechanisms for preparing students for the workplace and meeting workforce needs. Further, hands-on programs and courses that use sensors in the marine environment can serve as powerful motivators 70 Marine Technology Society Journal for students to engage in fundamental STEM concepts and learn them well. Demonstrating how education is relevant to the real world gives students focus and ambition, and helps them to make wise decisions about their education and future (Sullivan et al., 2004). Programs like the MATE Center’s international and regional ROV competitions, the AUV competition coordinated by the Office of Naval Research and the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, and the International Submarine Races, among others, provide these technology-based, real-world learning experiences for students from elementary through university levels. Designing and building underwater vehicles for a competition scenario not only involves a practical, working knowledge of math, physics, electronics, hydraulics, and engineering; it also requires project management, teamwork, critical thinking, and continual problem solving (Sullivan, 2003). In addition, through technical reports, engineering presentations, and poster displays, the competitions promote the ability to communicate complex issues to an audience of technical professionals, fellow students, and the public. From collecting organisms under the polar ice cap to preparing a subsea wellhead for oil production and installing ocean observatory sensor hubs on the seafloor, these competitions also pique student interest in STEM concepts and make learning exciting. Further, through the involvement of working professionals in organizing and judging the events, students are exposed to a wealth of careers, including the knowledge, skills, job responsibilities, and personal qualities that those careers entail. These powerful interactions with professionals from the field provide students with an excellent opportunity to make the connection between the classroom and a future career. The integration of real-time (real-world) data into classrooms is another powerful mechanism to increase student interest in and understanding of STEM concepts. Members of the COSEE network, led by Rutgers University, the Stevens Institute of Technology, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and others, continue the development of K-12 classroom materials that integrate real-time maritime data into existing science curricula to capitalize on the benefits and improve STEM skills. For example, students can use real-time data of water level, salinity, current direction and speed, and wind direction and speed data to simulate the actions of a harbor pilot when navigating a large ship through a narrow channel and under a bridge. This activity not only challenges students to interpret real-time data, it reinforces several science concepts in the context of a real-world application. In addition, there are several documented educational advantages to using data in classrooms, such as fostering problem-solving skills and demonstrating relevance, among others. Technology-based and data-enhanced educational experiences are important tools for student learning. In particular, these types of learning experiences prepare and empower students to address real-world complex problems; develop students’ abilities to use scientific methods; teach students how to critically evaluate the integrity and robustness of data and evidence and of their consequent interpretations or conclusions; and provide skill development in scientific, technical, quantitative, and communication skills (NSF, 2002; Hotaling et al., 2006). Further, students exposed to these learning experiences not only have a deeper appreciation of the fundamental STEM concepts, their level of awareness of sensor technology, sensor networks, and allied careers increases. For example, students participating in the 2006 MATE international ROV competition were asked to research ocean observing systems. Of the students who responded to post-competition surveys, more than 76% rated their level of knowledge about the technologies, careers, and organizations allied with ocean observatories as good or excellent as a result of their experience. III. Conclusion The sensor revolution is having far-reaching effects on marine technology and many other sectors of the economy. The continued development, operation, and maintenance of sensors and use of sensor information depends on a workforce with strong foundation of STEM skills; an ability to apply this knowledge to new disciplines and new problems; and an ability to effectively communicate sensor data to a variety of stakeholders. The challenge is to ensure that students of all grade levels have the opportunity to learn in a multidisciplinary environment that presents STEM in the context of real-world applications. By creating educational opportunities that are enriched with technology-based projects and providing students with career information that demonstrates the application of STEM, we can meet the challenge of preparing our students for success in the 21st century STEM workforce, one that can support the sensor revolution and provide benefits to society and the global economy. References American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Bransford, J., Brown, A. and Cocking, R. 1999. How People Learn. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Byus, F. 2006. Oceanographer of the Navy RADM Fred Byus’s Speech at Marine Technology Society Houston Section Annual Meeting, delivered September 28, 2006. CyberInfrastructure for Environmental Research and Education. 2003. Workshop Final Report. National Science Foundation. (http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/cyber/ cyberreport.pdf ) Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity: NOAA’s Broad Agency Announcement. February 2007. Eisenhower Regional Consortia for Mathematics and Science Education: Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC); U.S. Department of Education (DED), Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 1995. “Promising Practices in Mathematics and Science Education 1995: a collection of promising educational programs and practices from the Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Regional Consortia,” Reform in Math and Science Education, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. EuroGOOS. 2007. (http://www.eurogoos.org/ index.php?mainid=2&subid=1). Fry, C. 2003. “Oil Industry tool sniffs out cancer” (July 11, 2003). Retrieved June 2007. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/ 3059559.stm) Gallien, N. 2007. Letter of support to the MATE Center National Science Foundation grant proposal. October, 2007. Hirst, B., Gibson, G., Gillespie, S., Archibald, I., Podlaha, O., Skeldon, K., Courtial, J., Monk, S., Padgett, M. 2004. Oil and gas prospecting by ultra-sensitive optical gas detection with inverse gas dispersion modeling. Geophys Res Lett. 31, L12115, doi:10.1029/ 2004GL019678. Klicek, B. and Susac, M. 2003. “Toward integrated and revised learning styles supported by web and multimedia technologies,” The 8th Annual Conference of the European Learning Styles Information Network (ELSIN), University of Hull, Hull, England, July 2003. National Science Foundation. 2005. The Sensor Revolution: A Special Report. (http:// www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/sensor/ index.jsp). National Science Foundation 2002. “Using Data in Undergraduate Science Classrooms”, A final report on an interdisciplinary workshop at Carleton College, April 2002. National Science Board. 2006. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Two volumes, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (volume 1, NSB 06-01; volume 2, NSB 06-01A). National Science Board. 2003. The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential. National Science Foundation. (http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/ documents/2003/nsb0369/nsb0369.pdf). Piktialis, D. and Morgan, H. 2003. The aging of the U.S. workforce and its implications for employers. Compensation Benefits Review, 35:57-63. Streeter, J. 2005. Marine Technology Society (MTS) President Jerry Streeter’s “State of the Society” address presented at the 2005 MTS/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Oceans Conference, September 19-23, 2005, Washington, DC. Sullivan, D., Murphree, T., Ford, B. and Zande, J. 2006. OceanCareers.com: Navigating your way to a better future. Mar Technol Soc J. 39(4):99-104 Sullivan, D., Zande, J., Butcher, S., Murphree, T. and Ford, B. 2004. Using Marine Technology to Develop Ocean Literacy and Teach Workplace Competencies. Current, The Journal of Marine Education. 19(3):20-26. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, DC. ISBN#0-9759462-0-X. U.S. Department of Education. 2002. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2000, NCES 2003–453, by C. O’Sullivan, M. Lauko, W. Grigg, J. Qian and J. Zhang. Washington, D.C. Wang, G., Pran, K., Sagvolden, G., Havsgard, G.B., Jensen, A.E., Johnson, G.A. and Vohra, S.T. 2001. Ship hull structure monitoring using fibre optic sensors. Smart Mater Struct. 10:472 – 478. Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H. and Meloni, C. 2000. Internet for English Teaching, Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Publications, August, 2000. National Science Board. 2004. An Emerging and Critical Problem of the Science and Labor Force. National Science Foundation. (http:// www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/http:// www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/) Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 71 Authors Liesl Hotaling is the Director of Education for the Beacon Institute. She is a partner in COSEE-NOW and specializes in educational projects supporting observing networks. [email protected] Deidre Sullivan is the Director of the MATE Center at Monterey Peninsula College, a partner in COSEE-NOW. MATE’s mission is to improve marine technical education and increase the number of highly trained technical professionals who enter ocean-related occupations. [email protected] Jill Zande is the Associate Director and ROV Competition Coordinator for the MATE Center at Monterey Peninsula College. [email protected] 72 Marine Technology Society Journal C O M M E N TA RY Autonomous Underwater Vehicles: From the Garage to the Market AUTHOR Justin Manley Chair, Marine Technology Society AUV Committee T he Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) field has seen much advancement over the past 20 years. The pace of technical development has been impressively fast and has largely paralleled the growing capabilities of information technology. What is not so often recognized is the growth of the AUV market industry and workforce. Individual success stories have been told but a thorough review of the economic impact of the technology has not been conducted. This piece does not provide such a robust analysis. Rather it is a personal view, guided by the author’s own knowledge, of the important contribution this technology has made to economic growth and societal needs. While this piece highlights activities in the United States, especially within New England, AUVs represent a global interest and opportunity. Growing Companies Economic growth is usually measured by GDP. While the AUV industry contribution to GDP is tiny, an economic impact can be seen in a qualitative evaluation. Within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alone, AUVs have resulted in creation of new jobs and notable business volumes. Bluefin Robotics and Hydroid are, arguably, the leading manufacturers of AUVs in the United States and perhaps globally. Ten years ago Bluefin was a tiny company just breaking out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) AUV Lab and looking for their first home, which proved to be a defunct auto parts shop. Hydroid had not yet been incorporated; that happened in 2001. Blue- fin began commercializing a large AUV design based on the MIT Odyssey II while Hydroid began with a smaller vehicle, the REMUS. Today both companies offer a full array of large and small vehicles, and support elements such as batteries and tracking systems, for many missions and customers. Robotics startups in the home state of MIT are not unusual. Nor are ocean instrumentation spin-offs on Cape Cod, home to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. But both Bluefin and Hydroid have grown beyond most of their brethren in the region. A quick review of their web sites or the marine press reveals regular announcements of contracts valued in the tens of millions of dollars. Orders for multiple vehicles from domestic and international customers, across defense academic and industrial markets, are common. A recent AUV report by Douglas Westwood identifies just over 400 AUVs built to date. With Hydroid having delivered over 150, it is safe to say Massachusetts is a hub of this technology. While business is booming at AUV companies, additional impact on the economy can be seen in the new jobs these businesses have created. Bluefin’s handful of founders has grown to a staff of over 60 engineers and operators while Hydroid employs over 40. These are professional jobs in a region that has recently lamented a shrinking population and difficulty attracting strong employers after multiple boom and bust cycles in technology trends. Both companies are now expanding into the international arena. This noteworthy growth in ten years can be attributed to the intersection of unmanned vehicles and the marine technology sector. Gliding Along Not to be outdone by their propellerdriven peers, AUV gliders have also seen tremendous technical advances and business growth. A decade ago the concept of a buoyancy-driven vehicle scientists could trust to roam the ocean for weeks or months was pure fantasy. Today there are multiple choices and new designs are appearing regularly. In an economic sense, glider technology has enabled corporate growth. A Scripps Institution of Oceanography design was licensed to Bluefin Robotics for production and sale. The Seaglider system is available through a fabrication center at the University of Washington. Webb Research Corporation is another Massachusetts-based company with nearly 30 employees. Webb sells the Slocum glider and has delivered 90 units to 26 labs in 10 different countries. The gliding variants of AUVs usually have a lower purchase price and are being considered for deployment in fleets. Oceanographic agencies are considering the acquisition of over 100 gliders to support operational oceanography as well as research and modeling programs. While they lack propellers, AUV gliders are still moving swiftly and making a mark on the marine sector. Essential Services If AUVs are being built and sold, there must be buyers. Indeed there are. While defense agencies are a major customer for AUVs, they are not the only market. Other government agencies have either purchased or hired AUVs for a variety of missions. A sampling includes: Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 73 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has tested AUVs for hydrographic survey, fisheries research, habitat characterization, ocean exploration, and tracking of harmful algal blooms. NOAA owns several AUVs and works with academic partners and commercial providers to employ AUVs to its missions. ■ The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has deployed solar powered AUVs to measure dissolved oxygen concentrations in Narragansett Bay. It faces many operational oceanographic challenges AUVs can address. ■ The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has discussed the use of AUVs in missions including Fisheries Management, Port Safety and Security, and Law Enforcement. Some of these missions will overlap with defense customers but others will demand different solutions. ■ The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has hired AUVs for pipeline hazard surveys and to characterize historic shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico. Beyond these government agencies and academic users AUVs have found an eager customer in the offshore oil patch. As oil exploration and drilling moves ever deeper, the need for geophysical survey at great depth has followed. Conventional towed approaches to this problem have technical deficiencies (platform motion) and poor economy (deep tows can spend 50% of their deployment in turns). With the entry of AUVs, a new business was created. C & C Technologies pioneered this market with its first AUV survey in January 2001. Slowly the quality data and high productivity of AUV geophysical surveys was recognized in the offshore sector. By 2007 oil services contracts routinely specify the use of AUVs for data collection and C & C marked their 100,000th kilometer of AUV survey lines. This is roughly two and one-half times around the world. With over 150 clients and hundreds of projects across the globe, C & C Technologies has opened the door to a new service business based on AUV technology. The economic impacts of this industry are best left to trained analysis. But as competitors have entered the AUV survey market and oil has climbed to record prices, it is safe to say that ■ 74 Marine Technology Society Journal AUVs have had an impact measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars in this sector since 2001. New Entries While the first entrants into the AUV production and services markets grow and prosper, the free market has noticed. Offshore survey companies have added AUVs to their inventory to compete with C & C Technologies and startups are once more pushing the development of AUV technology and products. Again Massachusetts provides an example. OceanServer is a small company in Fall River, Massachusetts. By capitalizing on the continuous growth in information technology and embedded systems, they created an AUV based on low cost subsystems such as x86 processors and Windows XP software. The resulting AUV is small and offers limited payload and depth capabilities, as compared to larger and costlier systems from Bluefin or Hydroid. But it is definitely affordable. With an online storefront, OceanServer offers a refreshing approach and an appealing base price of $49,000. The first production run of 25 units are already committed to customers. Can online configuration and ordering of an AUV be far behind? While the new vehicle and low price is noteworthy, the evolving business model, further commoditizing AUVs, is also exciting. New Challenges As the market for AUV products and services matures, new challenges will arise. Business models will adapt and new applications will be discovered. Technical standards are in development and may enable the AUV industry, much as the Universal Serial Bus (USB) changed our computing habits. Growing numbers of unmanned systems in the ocean will demand new policy considerations. Interaction with the marine environment and other users will increase with the popularity of AUVs. Forward-thinking regulators, users, and producers of AUVs should keep this in mind to ensure continued economic growth and societal benefit from this technology. One of the most exciting challenges will be attracting the best new minds to the field. Student-built AUV and ROV competitions have become quite popular and inspire new talent into unmanned marine vehicles. Creating the jobs and career paths for them is a responsibility the AUV community must embrace. AUV technology has, or soon will, changed the face of the marine sector. These “unmanned” systems still require talented people and will reward those who invest in their wise application and development. BOOK REVIEW Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound By Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb Public Affairs, 2007 326 pp., $26.95 Reviewed by John F. Bash W endy Williams and Robert Whitcomb have provided the alternative energy community with an invaluable service by writing this well-documented book about how political figures and wealthy landowners can distort reality and block or attempt to block a giant step forward in alternative energy production. Cape Wind is the story of Jim Gordon’s tenacity, dogged determination and valiant effort to install a 130-turbine wind farm on Nantucket Sound. The wind farm, if built, could generate 468 megawatts of electrical power or enough to provide 75% of Cape Cod’s electrical needs. The proposed location is in federal waters about 5 miles off the coast, a coast studded with multi-million-dollar estates, estates of the rich and powerful. This cadre of nature loving, professed environmentalists embraces alternative energy but “not in my back yard.” As the fight to kill the project staggers forward, hypocrisy flourishes. They fight with facts, if they have any, or fear and hysteria when facts are weak. When science fails to make their case, they resort to pseudoscience. When rules and laws don’t work in their favor, they change them. The authors do a masterful job in exposing the maneuvering, shenanigans and skullduggery of The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and their accomplices. This story is as fresh as the Cape winds. The jury is still out as to whether the wind farm will be built or defeated. This well-documented book includes hundreds of quotes and exhaustive details of meetings, news articles and personal conversations. A sequel is begging to follow to tell the end of the story. Clearly the authors are biased in favor of alternative energy and the wind project. Like a good defense lawyer, they build a solid argument for Jim Gordon’s project and a compelling case against the “Alliance,” its followers, financial and political supporters. The Cape Wind project has brought together strange bedfellows with conservative Alaskan Republicans supporting a liberal Massachusetts Democrat; environmentalists supporting coal and oil magnates; union organizations supporting clean air advocates. The entangled story shines a light on this dark activity. Photographs of the “players” are scattered throughout the book. A substantial bibliography is included. The authors present an easy flowing writing style in this 326 page book. It is difficult to put down. Cape Wind is recommended to all interested in alternative energy, to wind energy advocates, to political junkies that follow backroom congressional maneuvering, and to anyone interested in a good read about a contemporary issue. Fall 2007 Volume 41, Number 3 75 Underwater Intervention Conference 2008 January 29–31 Morial Convention Center New Orleans, La. www.underwaterintervention.com It’s not to early to think about exhibiting at the next UI Conference! Visit www.underwaterintervention.com/ exhibitors.shtml for exhibitor package information. Contact Rebecca Roberts at [email protected] for information on exhibiting. The conference focuses on commercial diving, remotely operated vehicles, shipwreck exploration, sonar and AUV survey, ocean mining, underwater operations, nuclear and hydro energy, offshore oil and gas, acoustics, marine salvage, regulations and safety. Photo credit: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution ONR/MTS Buoy Workshop’08 The 2008 ONR/MTS Buoy Workshop will be held in the Hollywood Casino in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi from Tuesday, March 4th to Thursday noon, March 6th, 2008. Site visits at the National Data Buoy Center and the Naval Oceanographic Office located at the nearby Stennis Space Center will be part of the program. This will be the seventh ONR/MTS Buoy Workshop; these workshops have been held every two years starting in 1996. Details about the program will be available soon at the conference web page: http://www.whoi.edu/buoyworkshop/ For further information contact: Walter Paul at [email protected] Rick Cole at [email protected] or Judy Rizoli at [email protected] UPCOMING MTS JOURNAL ISSUES CALL FOR PAPERS The MTS Journal Winter 2007/2008 General Issue will now include technical papers, notes Spring 2008 State of Technology in 2008 and commentaries Guest Editors: Donna M. Kocak, Green Sky Imaging Richard Crout, National Data Buoy Center Summer 2008 Sustainable Development of Offshore Wind Energy of general interest in each quarterly issue. Contact Managing Editor Amy Morgante ([email protected]) Guest Editor: Greg Watson, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs, and Massachusetts Technology Collaborative if you have material you would like considered. Specifications for submitting a manuscript are on the MTS Web site under the Publications menu. www.mtsociety.org Check the Society Web site for future Journal topics. www.mtsociety.org E-mail: ADVERTISING RATES SPACE INSERTION RATE (US$) SPACE DIMENSIONS [email protected] Or visit our homepage at www.mtsociety.org Marine Technology Society Publications Listing The following Marine Technology Society publications are available for purchase. Prices for 2007 are listed below. Members are granted a discount of 10% off the purchase order. You can purchase publications by doing one of the following: ■ Calling MTS at 410-884-5330 with your publication(s) order and credit card number. Reference FA41.3. ■ Logging on to our Web site at www.mtsociety.org, selecting the Publications menu, then the Publications for Sale submenu. ■ Circling the items and filling out the form below, then mailing it to MTS. JOURNALS Stemming the Tide of Coastal Disasters, Part 2 ... $20 Stemming the Tide of Coastal Disasters, Part 1 ... $20 Tales of Not-So-Ancient Mariners: Review From the MTS Archives ................................................ $20 Promoting Lifelong Ocean Education - Exempleary Ocean and Aquatic Education Efforts that Promote Science Literacy for all Americans ................... $20 State of Technology Report: Marine Technology in 2005 .......................................................... $20 Acoustic Tracking of Marine Fishes: Implications for the Design of Marine Protected Areas ........ $20 Final Report from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy: Implications and Opportunities ........ $20 Underwater Pollution Threats to Our Nation’s Marine Resources ........................... $20 Innovations in Ocean Research Infrastructure to Advance High Priority Science ..................... $20 Human-generated Ocean Sound and the Effects on Marine Life ............................ $20 Ocean Observing Systems ............................... $20 Science, Technology and Management in the National Marine Sanctuary Program ............ $20 Ocean Energy—an Overview of the State of the Art ........................................................ $20 Marine Archaeology and Technology— A New Direction in Deep Sea Exploration ... $20 Technology in Marine Biology ......................... $20 Ocean Mapping—A Focus of Shallow Water Environment .................................... $20 Oceanographic Research Vessels ........................ $20 Technology as a Driving Force in the Changing Roles of Aquariums in the New Millennium ........ $20 Submarine Telecoms Cable Installation Technologies ............................................... $20 Deep Ocean Frontiers ...................................... $20 A Formula for Bycatch Reduction .................... $16 Marine Science and Technology in the Asia Region, Part 2 ......................................................... $16 Marine Science and Technology in the Asia Region, Part 1 ......................................................... $16 Major U.S Oceanographic Research Programs: Impacts, Legacies and the Future ................. $16 Marine Animal Telemetry Tags: What We Learn and How We Learn It ........................................ $16 Scientific Sampling Systems for Underwater Vehicles ...................................................... $16 U.S. Naval Operational Oceanography ............. $16 Innovation and Partnerships for Marine Science and Technology in the 21st Century .................. $16 Marine Science and Technology in Russia ......... $16 Public-Private Partnerships For Marine Science & Technology (1995) ..................................... $16 Oceanographic Ships (1994–95) .................... $16 Military Assets for Environmental Research (1993–94) ................................................. $16 Oceanic and Atmospheric Nowcasting and Forecasting (1992) ...................................... $12 Education and Training in Ocean Engineering (1992) ....................................................... $12 Global Change, Part II (1991–92) .................. $10 Global Change, Part 1 (1991) ......................... $10 MARINE EDUCATION Education and Training Programs In Oceanography and Related Fields (1995) ...................... $ 6 Operational Effectiveness of Unmanned Underwater Systems ................................................. $99 State of Technology Report—Ocean and Coastal Engineering (2001) ............................... $7 dom ............................................................. $9For. State of Technology Report—Marine Policy and Education (2002) .................................. $7 dom ............................................................. $9 For. PROCEEDINGS Oceans 2005 MTS/IEEE (CDROM) ............. $50 Oceans 2004 MTS/IEEE (CDROM) ............. $50 Oceans 2003 MTS/IEEE (CDROM) ............. $50 Oceans 2002 MTS/IEEE (CDROM) ............. $50 Oceans 2001 MTS/IEEE (CDROM) ............. $50 Artificial Reef Conference ................................. $25 Oceans 2000 MTS/IEEE CD-ROM ............... $50 Oceans 1999 MTS/IEEE ‘99 Paper Copy ....... $80 Oceans 1999 MTS/IEEE CDROM ................ $40 Ocean Community Conference ‘98 ............... $100 Underwater Intervention 2002 ........................ $50 Underwater Intervention 2000 ........................ $50 Underwater Intervention ‘99 ............................ $50 Underwater Intervention ‘98 ............................ $50 500 Years of Ocean Exploration (Oceans ‘97) ............................................. $130 Underwater Intervention ‘97 ............................ $50 The Coastal Ocean—Prospects for The 21st Century (Oceans ‘96) ................ $145 Underwater Intervention ‘96 ............................ $50 Challenges of Our Changing Global Environment (Oceans ‘95) ........................ $145 Underwater Intervention ‘95 ............................ $75 Underwater Intervention ‘94 ............................ $95 Underwater Intervention ‘93 ............................ $95 MTS ‘92 ....................................................... $140 ROV ‘92 ...................................................... $105 MTS ‘91 ....................................................... $130 ROV ‘91 ........................................................ $95 1991–1992 Review of Developments in Marine Living Resources, Engineering and Technology. $15 ROV ‘90 ........................................................ $90 The Global Ocean (Oceans ‘89) ...................... $75 ROV ‘89 ........................................................ $65 Partnership of Marine Interest (Oceans ‘88) ..... $65 The Oceans–An International Workplace (Oceans ‘87) ............................................... $65 Organotin Symposium (Oceans ‘87, Vol. 4) .... $10 ROV ‘87 ........................................................ $40 Technology Update–An International Perspective (ROV ‘85) ................................ $35 Ocean Engineering and the Environment (Oceans ‘85) ............................................... $45 Ocean Data: Sensor-to-User (1985) ................. $33 Arctic Engineering for the 21st Century (1984) . $20 Marine Salvage: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium (1984) ................ $21 M T S P U B L I C A T I O N S O R D E R F O R M — R E F : FA41.3 Please print _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr./Ms./Dr. First name Last name _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Address _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City State Zip SEND APPLICATION TO: Marine Technology Society 5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 108 Columbia, Maryland 21044 Country E-mail Please call MTS at 410-884-5330 for an MTS Membership Application or see the following pages for an Application. P A Y M E N T : Make checks payable to Marine Technology Society (U.S. funds only) Credit card: ❏ Amex ❏ Mastercard ❏ Visa ❏ Diners Club FAX (410) 884-9060 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone FAX _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Card Number Exp. Date Signature E-mail: [email protected] Marine Technology Society Membership Application and MTS Journal Subscription Request ■ Yes, I want to become a member of the Marine Technology Society. ■ I wish to purchase a subscription to the print version of the MTS Journal. (MTS Journal online is a free member benefit not available to non-members.) ■ I’m not ready to join at the present time, but I would like to receive news and information from MTS. Please keep my name on your mailing list. (Please fill in member information section and return to MTS.) MEMBER INFORMATION (Please fill in the address where MTS publications and correspondence should be sent.) Name: _______________________________________________Company (if applicable): _____________________________ Title:________________________________________________Email:____________________________________________ Phone:______________________________________________ FAX:_____________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES ■ MEMBER: $75 Any person with active professional interest in the marine field or a closely related field. Includes the online version of the Journal. ■ ASSOCIATE: $75 Any person with an interest in the marine field and supporting MTS objectives. Includes the online version of the Journal. ■ STUDENT: $25 Must be a full-time undergraduate or graduate student. Includes the online version of the Journal. ■ PATRON: Any person supporting MTS objectives by contributing $100 or more annually. (Contribution above $75 dues is tax deductible.) Includes the online version of the Journal. ■ EMERITUS: $40 Any person who is retired from active professional interest in the marine field. Includes the online version of the Journal. ■ LIFE: $1000 One-time payment. Includes both the online version of the Journal and the paper copy of the Journal. ■ CORPORATE Fortune 500: $2000 Any corporation endorsing the objectives, policies and activities of MTS. May appoint 16 representatives to the Society, who have the same rights and privileges as Members. Includes the online version of the Journal for each representative. The main contact receives a subscription to the paper copy of the Journal. ■ CORPORATE Non-Fortune 500: $1000 Any corporation endorsing the objectives, policies and activities of MTS. May appoint 11 representatives to the Society, who have the same rights and privileges as Members. Includes the online version of the Journal for each representative. The main contact receives a subscription to the paper copy of the Journal. ■ BUSINESS: $550 Any business firm whose gross annual income is less than $4 million endorsing the objectives, policies and activities of MTS. May appoint six representatives to the Society, who have the same rights and privileges as Members. Includes the online version of the Journal for each representative. The main contact receives a subscription to the paper copy of the Journal. ■ INSTITUTION: $550 Any library, government unit or other qualified nonprofit organization endorsing the objectives, policies and activities of MTS. May appoint six representatives to the Society, who have the same rights and privileges as Members. Includes the online version of the Journal for each representative. The main contact receives a subscription to the paper copy of the Journal. MTS JOURNAL PRINT VERSION SUBSCRIPTION Domestic Subscription ■ Member Rate: Journal Subscription........................$ 25 ■ Non-Member Rate: Journal Subscription................. $120 Foreign Subscription ■ Member Rate: Journal Subscription.......................$ 50 ■ Non-Member Rate: Journal Subscription.................$135 Please complete other side Marine Technology Society Membership Application (continued) EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION Please fill out the following information about yourself: Check your highest level of education: n ■ High School Diploma n ■ Associate (2 yr.) Degree Check all that apply: n ■ B.S. ■ n B.E. n ■ YES Do you have a P.E. license? ■ n Four Year Degree ■ n B.A. ■ n M.S. ■ n Graduate Degree ■ n M.A. ■ n M.E. ■ n Ph.D. ■ n Doctorate ■ n Sc.D. ■ n NO BUSINESS/PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION Name of current employer: _________________________________________________________________________________ Your employer’s primary line of business at your location: ________________________________________________________ If you don’t work for an employer, please identify your business: ___________________________________________________ If military, rank: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Your principal job function/responsibilities: __Engineering Management __Science Management __Sales __Marketing __Administration __Policy Making, Regulatory __Public Affairs __Engineering Design __Mechanical Engineering __Software Engineering __Education/Teaching __Legal __Consulting __Retired __Other (please specify) _______________________ Your job title: Check areas of interest: __President/CEO/COO __Owner/Partner __VP, Senior Manager __Project Manager, Engineering __Project Manager, Other __Corporate VP, Engineering __Engineering Director __Chief/Senior Engineer __Chief/Senior Scientist __Project Manager __Engineer __Operations VP __Scientist __Other (please specify) _______________________ __Autonomous Underwater Vehicles __Dynamic Positioning __Manned Underwater Vehicles __Ocean Energy __Oceanographic Instrumentation __Remote Sensing __Remotely Operated Vehicles __Underwater Imaging __Marine Geodesy __Marine Living Resources __Mineral Resources __Ocean Pollution __Oceanographic Ships __Physical Oceanography & Meteorology __Seafloor Engineering __Buoy Technology __Cables & Connectors __Marine Archaeology __Diving __Marine Materials __Moorings __Offshore Structures __Ropes & Tension Members __Coastal Zone Management __Marine Education __Marine Law & Policy __Marine Recreation __Merchant Marine __Marine Security __Ocean Economic Potential __Other (please specify) _______________________ Optional Information: n ■ Male ■ n Female What is your age? ■ n Under 30 ■ n 30-40 n ■ 41-50 ■ n 51-60 ■ n Over 60 MEMBERSHIP AND JOURNAL PAYMENT Payment Method: n ■ Check Enclosed ■ n Master Card Make checks payable to the Marine Technology Society (U.S. funds only) ■ n Visa n ■ Diners Club ■ n Am Ex Card #: __________________________________________________________ Expiration Date: ________________________ Signature: ________________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________ TOTAL PAYMENT: Membership: $_____________ Journal: $_____________ TOTAL: $_____________ Four easy ways to join! Mail: Fax: Online: Phone: Send application with check or credit card info to: Marine Technology Society / 5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 108 / Columbia, MD 21044 Fax application to: 410-884-9060 (credit card payments only) Apply online at www.mtsociety.org Contact us at: 410-884-5330 Marine Technology Society 5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 108 Columbia, Maryland 21044 Postage for periodicals is paid at Columbia, MD, and additional mailing offices.