Download the international, interdisciplinary society devoted to ocean and

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.