Iron sulfate dumped off B.C. coast
- Thread starter GLG
- Start date
steel_dreamin
Member
http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...nancial+environmental+gain/7424439/story.html
The last two paragraphs are very important.
They will be paying the piper soon.
The last two paragraphs are very important.
They will be paying the piper soon.
Derby
Crew Member
A controversial ocean fertilization experiment off the coast of Haida Gwaii may well boost salmon stocks, but verifying the levels of carbon sequestration in order to sell carbon offsets would be virtually impossible, according to a carbon expert.
The Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. has come under fire for what is being described as an uncontrolled experiment in ocean fertilization.
Earlier this year, in partnership with maverick American entrepreneur Russ George and with funding from the Old Massett Village council of the Haida First Nation, the company dumped 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean off coast of Haida Gwaii in international waters.
The project has a two-fold objective: boost salmon stocks by fertilizing the ocean, and sell carbon offsets for the carbon capture that would occur.
When there is a phytoplankton bloom, about 70% will be consumed by zooplankton, which in turn feed fish all the way up the food chain to salmon and whales. Roughly 30% of the phytoplankton will die, however, and when it falls to the ocean floor, it has the effect of storing vast amounts of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas.
Satellite imaging shows there is a large plankton bloom now occurring in the area that was fertilized.
Robert Falls, founder and chairman of ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd. (TSX-V:ESR), does not doubt that the iron will ultimately boost fish stocks, and believes that carbon sequestration in oceans could become an important part of the battle to reduce greenhouse gases.
But he doesn’t think there’s much of a business proposition for selling carbon offsets for ocean fertilization projects.
“I don’t know how you sell carbon offsets without a validated and verified methodology,” Falls said. “The challenge of measurement and verification is significant. And there’s the social licence challenge – people just don’t like folks monkeying with the oceans.”
Falls said it is tough enough to measure the carbon sequestration that occurs in trees – in oceans it would be virtually impossible to distinguish from the naturally occurring sequestration.
Phytoplankton blooms occur naturally in the ocean when storms blow iron-rich soil into the oceans from desserts, and it has even been suggested that volcanic ash from an eruption in Alaska in 2008 caused a plankton bloom that led to the massive returns of Fraser River sockeye salmon in 2010.
That hypothesis was based in part of the research done by Roberta Hamme, an oceanographer with the University of Victoria.
Hamme said it would be difficult for George and the Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. to prove that ocean fertilization caused the current phytoplankton bloom.
“This region has eddies with naturally iron rich waters, so it is difficult to distinguish naturally high productivity regions from any artificially created one without more information,” Hamme told Business in Vancouver.
“I haven’t seen real evidence that the iron addition caused a bloom, but this is difficult to check without details on the time and location of the release.”
nbennett@biv.com
The Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. has come under fire for what is being described as an uncontrolled experiment in ocean fertilization.
Earlier this year, in partnership with maverick American entrepreneur Russ George and with funding from the Old Massett Village council of the Haida First Nation, the company dumped 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean off coast of Haida Gwaii in international waters.
The project has a two-fold objective: boost salmon stocks by fertilizing the ocean, and sell carbon offsets for the carbon capture that would occur.
When there is a phytoplankton bloom, about 70% will be consumed by zooplankton, which in turn feed fish all the way up the food chain to salmon and whales. Roughly 30% of the phytoplankton will die, however, and when it falls to the ocean floor, it has the effect of storing vast amounts of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas.
Satellite imaging shows there is a large plankton bloom now occurring in the area that was fertilized.
Robert Falls, founder and chairman of ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd. (TSX-V:ESR), does not doubt that the iron will ultimately boost fish stocks, and believes that carbon sequestration in oceans could become an important part of the battle to reduce greenhouse gases.
But he doesn’t think there’s much of a business proposition for selling carbon offsets for ocean fertilization projects.
“I don’t know how you sell carbon offsets without a validated and verified methodology,” Falls said. “The challenge of measurement and verification is significant. And there’s the social licence challenge – people just don’t like folks monkeying with the oceans.”
Falls said it is tough enough to measure the carbon sequestration that occurs in trees – in oceans it would be virtually impossible to distinguish from the naturally occurring sequestration.
Phytoplankton blooms occur naturally in the ocean when storms blow iron-rich soil into the oceans from desserts, and it has even been suggested that volcanic ash from an eruption in Alaska in 2008 caused a plankton bloom that led to the massive returns of Fraser River sockeye salmon in 2010.
That hypothesis was based in part of the research done by Roberta Hamme, an oceanographer with the University of Victoria.
Hamme said it would be difficult for George and the Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. to prove that ocean fertilization caused the current phytoplankton bloom.
“This region has eddies with naturally iron rich waters, so it is difficult to distinguish naturally high productivity regions from any artificially created one without more information,” Hamme told Business in Vancouver.
“I haven’t seen real evidence that the iron addition caused a bloom, but this is difficult to check without details on the time and location of the release.”
nbennett@biv.com
Derby
Crew Member
Iron-fertilizing experiment took place in worst possible spot, say scientists
Impossible to determine how iron affected the study without proper isolation
By Zoe McKnight, Vancouver Sun October 24, 2012
Of all the vast area covered by the Pacific Ocean, the coastal waters off Haida Gwaii are one of the worst spots to conduct an iron fertilization experiment, scientists say.
And yet over the summer, 100 tonnes of iron sulphate and 20 tonnes of iron oxide were scattered 370 kilometres off the coast of Haida Gwaii, right in the path of the Haida eddies, during the first and only project undertaken by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. The $2.5-million exercise was a purported attempt to measure how the iron - which is water-soluble - added to the ocean could enhance declining salmon stocks.
The Haida eddies, clockwise-rotating areas of water up to 300 kilometres in diameter, are known to carry iron-rich coastal water out to sea, where there is less iron and therefore less ocean life. The eddies form off the southern tip of the island and become highly concentrated with phytoplankton and chlorophyll, which is readily visible as a "bloom" from satellites as they travel through the northeast Pacific.
The iron fertilization project garnered worldwide attention and criticism from the scientific community.
Scientists from around the world have studied the ocean currents near the archipelago, and many expressed concern over the environmental effects on what is considered pristine water.
But experts also say adding iron to this particular ocean region would obscure any data collected by the salmon restoration company because it would be impossible to tell if any growth in fish food - plankton - was a result of added iron or the eddies.
"If you were going to plan to do an experiment to demonstrate the impact of iron fertilization, you wouldn't dump it into a Haida eddy, I don't think," said Jay Cullen, an ocean scientist who runs a lab at the University of Victoria that studies chemicals and trace metals in marine environments.
"If a group were to fertilize such a feature with iron, it would be next to impossible to determine how productivity and phytoplankton biomass was influenced by the treatment," he said, calling it "bad scientific design."
A well-designed experiment would include a way to distinguish between water with iron added and water without, to isolate the impact of adding the iron by using a control water sample.
Outside the eddies, iron concentration offshore is low because its source is land and the northeast Pacific is ane-mic compared to coastal water. John Disney, the company's CEO and economic development officer of Old Massett, has displayed satellite images of new plankton growth. But from space, the Haida eddies were already visible because of the algae blooms - Canadian studies show a naturally occurring spring bloom and another in late fall.
The company has also stated that analysis of the iron-treated water samples is ongoing, but no results have been released.
New Zealand ocean scientist Cliff Law, who has been involved in open-ocean iron addition experiments in the Gulf of Alaska, also cast doubt on the project's scientific process.
He said a portion of the iron would have been lost to sinking, and that 100 tonnes is a far greater amount than has been attempted in controlled experiments.
"The images I've seen from the recent experiment show an eddy of high chlorophyll, but you'll see in the same image other eddies and also water along the shelf contains high levels of chlorophyll, so there's an issue of verification here, how do they know that the phytoplankton bloom in the satellite images is the result of the iron they added and not just natural," he wrote in an email.
While the Old Massett Village Council has defended its methods, the Council of the Haida Nation has distanced itself from the project, and Environment Canada is conducting an investigation.
That agency's enforcement officers met with company officials in May, when they were informed that an iron ore deposit in the water would violate the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, unless it was for "legitimate research."
The federal Environment Minister Peter Kent was not made aware of the iron deposit until it had happened, his press secretary James Sweet said Tuesday, adding an investigation began Aug. 30.
The iron deposit also likely contravenes the United Nation's London Convention, which prohibits ocean dumping for reasons other than research, because the iron was scattered in international water just past the Canadian jurisdictional boundary.
Several researchers at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are considered experts on the Haida eddies, and an entire issue of the journal Deep Sea Research II has been devoted to the phenomena.
That ministry refused a request for comment, citing the Environment Canada investigation.
HOW HAIDA EDDIES PRODUCE ALGAE BLOOMS
Ocean currents push iron-rich waters into the open ocean, encouraging growth
1. Haida eddies
are created by ocean currents and are formed at the base of Haida Gwaii. They rotate clockwise into the east Pacific, heading to the Alaskan Gyre, and can measure 150 to 300 km in diameter.
2. Algae or plankton is the base of the
food chain and requires iron for metabolic purposes. Most iron found in oceans originates on land, while offshore waters contain less iron. When the iron-rich Haida eddies come into contact with the iron-deficient offshore water, it encourages the growth of phytoplankton. The resulting algae "blooms" are visible from satellite. Blooms typically occur in the spring and in late summer or early fall.
3. Phytoplankton, through photosynthesis, absorb carbon dioxide - just like plants - and release oxygen as a waste product. Phytoplankton sink after they die and decompose at a level that's no longer in contact with the atmosphere. While it's been suggested plankton blooms act as a carbon sink, research suggests the process is unreliable.
zmcknight@vancouversun.com
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...t+scientists/7437393/story.html#ixzz2AE2XhpQq
Impossible to determine how iron affected the study without proper isolation
By Zoe McKnight, Vancouver Sun October 24, 2012
Of all the vast area covered by the Pacific Ocean, the coastal waters off Haida Gwaii are one of the worst spots to conduct an iron fertilization experiment, scientists say.
And yet over the summer, 100 tonnes of iron sulphate and 20 tonnes of iron oxide were scattered 370 kilometres off the coast of Haida Gwaii, right in the path of the Haida eddies, during the first and only project undertaken by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. The $2.5-million exercise was a purported attempt to measure how the iron - which is water-soluble - added to the ocean could enhance declining salmon stocks.
The Haida eddies, clockwise-rotating areas of water up to 300 kilometres in diameter, are known to carry iron-rich coastal water out to sea, where there is less iron and therefore less ocean life. The eddies form off the southern tip of the island and become highly concentrated with phytoplankton and chlorophyll, which is readily visible as a "bloom" from satellites as they travel through the northeast Pacific.
The iron fertilization project garnered worldwide attention and criticism from the scientific community.
Scientists from around the world have studied the ocean currents near the archipelago, and many expressed concern over the environmental effects on what is considered pristine water.
But experts also say adding iron to this particular ocean region would obscure any data collected by the salmon restoration company because it would be impossible to tell if any growth in fish food - plankton - was a result of added iron or the eddies.
"If you were going to plan to do an experiment to demonstrate the impact of iron fertilization, you wouldn't dump it into a Haida eddy, I don't think," said Jay Cullen, an ocean scientist who runs a lab at the University of Victoria that studies chemicals and trace metals in marine environments.
"If a group were to fertilize such a feature with iron, it would be next to impossible to determine how productivity and phytoplankton biomass was influenced by the treatment," he said, calling it "bad scientific design."
A well-designed experiment would include a way to distinguish between water with iron added and water without, to isolate the impact of adding the iron by using a control water sample.
Outside the eddies, iron concentration offshore is low because its source is land and the northeast Pacific is ane-mic compared to coastal water. John Disney, the company's CEO and economic development officer of Old Massett, has displayed satellite images of new plankton growth. But from space, the Haida eddies were already visible because of the algae blooms - Canadian studies show a naturally occurring spring bloom and another in late fall.
The company has also stated that analysis of the iron-treated water samples is ongoing, but no results have been released.
New Zealand ocean scientist Cliff Law, who has been involved in open-ocean iron addition experiments in the Gulf of Alaska, also cast doubt on the project's scientific process.
He said a portion of the iron would have been lost to sinking, and that 100 tonnes is a far greater amount than has been attempted in controlled experiments.
"The images I've seen from the recent experiment show an eddy of high chlorophyll, but you'll see in the same image other eddies and also water along the shelf contains high levels of chlorophyll, so there's an issue of verification here, how do they know that the phytoplankton bloom in the satellite images is the result of the iron they added and not just natural," he wrote in an email.
While the Old Massett Village Council has defended its methods, the Council of the Haida Nation has distanced itself from the project, and Environment Canada is conducting an investigation.
That agency's enforcement officers met with company officials in May, when they were informed that an iron ore deposit in the water would violate the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, unless it was for "legitimate research."
The federal Environment Minister Peter Kent was not made aware of the iron deposit until it had happened, his press secretary James Sweet said Tuesday, adding an investigation began Aug. 30.
The iron deposit also likely contravenes the United Nation's London Convention, which prohibits ocean dumping for reasons other than research, because the iron was scattered in international water just past the Canadian jurisdictional boundary.
Several researchers at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are considered experts on the Haida eddies, and an entire issue of the journal Deep Sea Research II has been devoted to the phenomena.
That ministry refused a request for comment, citing the Environment Canada investigation.
HOW HAIDA EDDIES PRODUCE ALGAE BLOOMS
Ocean currents push iron-rich waters into the open ocean, encouraging growth
1. Haida eddies
are created by ocean currents and are formed at the base of Haida Gwaii. They rotate clockwise into the east Pacific, heading to the Alaskan Gyre, and can measure 150 to 300 km in diameter.
2. Algae or plankton is the base of the
food chain and requires iron for metabolic purposes. Most iron found in oceans originates on land, while offshore waters contain less iron. When the iron-rich Haida eddies come into contact with the iron-deficient offshore water, it encourages the growth of phytoplankton. The resulting algae "blooms" are visible from satellite. Blooms typically occur in the spring and in late summer or early fall.
3. Phytoplankton, through photosynthesis, absorb carbon dioxide - just like plants - and release oxygen as a waste product. Phytoplankton sink after they die and decompose at a level that's no longer in contact with the atmosphere. While it's been suggested plankton blooms act as a carbon sink, research suggests the process is unreliable.
zmcknight@vancouversun.com
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...t+scientists/7437393/story.html#ixzz2AE2XhpQq
Theb55
Active Member
There is little doubt in my mind that this past season was a season to remember for coho. They came early and stayed. For many of us, it was far more productive than a pink run. Has there been an attempt by anyone to understand why they returned in such great numbers? Is it possibly related to that bloom? I read once there was a suggestion that our record Sockeye run was possibly linked to volcanic eruptions in Alaska that released vast quantities of iron oxide over the ocean and caused a massive bloom there.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Wow.. I didn't know how this stuff worked when I first posted.
Here seems to be a creditable link into the subject.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php
GLG
Here seems to be a creditable link into the subject.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php
GLG
GLG
Well-Known Member
Good questions, If they tagged the iron it might show up in the fish.
Passing heavy metals from burning coal proves that.
I suspect if you kick start the Phytoplankton it will get to the fish at some point in time.
Would we see it that quick? Not sure but that volcano could gives us an answer for that.
When was the eruption and when did we see the record run.
GLG
Theb55
Active Member
The volcanic eruption in Alaska occurred just prior to the time Sockeye would have arrived. Apparently these volcanoes have a very high iron content and the alga bloom was seen from space. We also know oceans play an important part in weather. So the question I will put out there. Did the Alga bloom off Haida Gwaii play a part in the very sunny dry summer experienced on the south coast?
GLG
Well-Known Member
I would say that has more to do with climate change then dumping iron in the ocean.
GLG
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Here's a link to the 2008 Kasatochi volcanic eruption and the 2010 Fraser sockeye return:http://www.oceanographerschoice.com/2012/06/kasatochis-ash-and-the-fraser-river-sockeye/
Two years from eruption to return.
Here's a what Wikipedia has to say about the Kasatochi Volcano: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasatochi_Island
Another thing to consider is sockeye are plankton eaters, coho are fish eaters.
IMHO the goood returns of coho this year are not related to the fertilization during the summer. Perhaps, as Outback said earlier, in 2014? Still, it will be inconclusive.
Mighty Sylvan
Active Member
Notice the funny comment at the end of this article before this experiment was known to the public.
So they want to do it again, hmmm.
Well I'm not opposed in theory to this kind of experiment – if it isn't some kind of get rich quick scheme for carbon credits, and is intended as stated – to raise ocean productivity.
However, at this point – I have more questions than answers. If they have adequate scientific controls and an accredited experimental design – the news hasn't been reporting it.
My 1st question would be: How do you know what is a treatment and what is a control?
In lakes – it is reasonably easy to seperate controls between paired lakes – this is some of the work that was done in Ontario before Harper closed the research facility. How does one do that in the Ocean where everything moves around? How do you differentiate between a plankton bloom caused by iron enrichment and one that was going to happen there anyway? How do you rate the sucess of the bloom? As a percentage of what you hoped would have been there before? How do you determine fish growth and productivity from this?
GLG posted a good link about a Southern Ocean experiment where they used a hexafluoride tracer to prove that it was their iron that made a difference. Has/is this group doing the same? Should they? Should they use a less toxic tracer? How do you tell it was your iron that made a difference?
For the Southern Ocean experiment they sowed an area of the ocean that had abundant plant nutrients but lacking plankton - formally termed high-nitrate low-chlorophyll (HNLC) areas. Biggest bang for the buck there. A little iron for the photosynthesis reaction, and BINGO a bloom since the other nutrients are there.
Did these guys look at that? Do we have areas that could give a big bang for little tweaking?
What about the salmon smolts? If the experiment is 200 miles offshore so that no permits are needed from Canada – then are there smolts that far out? Probably not, although there may be sub-adult salmon. Did they do scale analysis to see if the growth rate of potentially-affected salmon grew more? If they did – they never said so in the media.
Apparently in the Southern experiment they noticed a 10% drawdown of carbon dioxide and a significant increase in diatoms which use silica to make their shells called tests. Did this group test for CO2 and silica before and after at surface and at depth where diatoms sink to? Did they look at oxide, methane, or dimethylsulfide levels at depth where diatoms would decompose before and after? What are the implications of an increase in daitoms – who benefits, who looses?
And finally – how was this experiment financed? Did the residents of Masset loose other opportunities paying for this? Who paid for it?
More questions than answers at this point.
Well I'm not opposed in theory to this kind of experiment – if it isn't some kind of get rich quick scheme for carbon credits, and is intended as stated – to raise ocean productivity.
However, at this point – I have more questions than answers. If they have adequate scientific controls and an accredited experimental design – the news hasn't been reporting it.
My 1st question would be: How do you know what is a treatment and what is a control?
In lakes – it is reasonably easy to seperate controls between paired lakes – this is some of the work that was done in Ontario before Harper closed the research facility. How does one do that in the Ocean where everything moves around? How do you differentiate between a plankton bloom caused by iron enrichment and one that was going to happen there anyway? How do you rate the sucess of the bloom? As a percentage of what you hoped would have been there before? How do you determine fish growth and productivity from this?
GLG posted a good link about a Southern Ocean experiment where they used a hexafluoride tracer to prove that it was their iron that made a difference. Has/is this group doing the same? Should they? Should they use a less toxic tracer? How do you tell it was your iron that made a difference?
For the Southern Ocean experiment they sowed an area of the ocean that had abundant plant nutrients but lacking plankton - formally termed high-nitrate low-chlorophyll (HNLC) areas. Biggest bang for the buck there. A little iron for the photosynthesis reaction, and BINGO a bloom since the other nutrients are there.
Did these guys look at that? Do we have areas that could give a big bang for little tweaking?
What about the salmon smolts? If the experiment is 200 miles offshore so that no permits are needed from Canada – then are there smolts that far out? Probably not, although there may be sub-adult salmon. Did they do scale analysis to see if the growth rate of potentially-affected salmon grew more? If they did – they never said so in the media.
Apparently in the Southern experiment they noticed a 10% drawdown of carbon dioxide and a significant increase in diatoms which use silica to make their shells called tests. Did this group test for CO2 and silica before and after at surface and at depth where diatoms sink to? Did they look at oxide, methane, or dimethylsulfide levels at depth where diatoms would decompose before and after? What are the implications of an increase in daitoms – who benefits, who looses?
And finally – how was this experiment financed? Did the residents of Masset loose other opportunities paying for this? Who paid for it?
More questions than answers at this point.
ChoveyRoller
Member
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Thanks guy's for spotting these updates.
We have serious problems with the world that some refuse to see.
Our own government speaks to the problem of climate change so what is there solution.
More oil and more coal and for good measure more gas.
We are heading on a path to leave our children major problems and we can't seem to stop this train.
I see this rogue plan as forcing the hand of Canada and the world into solutions.
Is the science settled that this plan has an effect?
Nope but I see it as a technology that can work and needs further tests.
Do we need to keep careful watch and observe the project?
Yup, the best science should be watching and give input on the monitoring of the project.
Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
We have serious problems with the world that some refuse to see.
Our own government speaks to the problem of climate change so what is there solution.
More oil and more coal and for good measure more gas.
We are heading on a path to leave our children major problems and we can't seem to stop this train.
I see this rogue plan as forcing the hand of Canada and the world into solutions.
Is the science settled that this plan has an effect?
Nope but I see it as a technology that can work and needs further tests.
Do we need to keep careful watch and observe the project?
Yup, the best science should be watching and give input on the monitoring of the project.
Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
Last edited by a moderator:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
This is a dangerous experiment if you ask me, no different from testing a medication on lab rats and then going right to full production for human consumption, with no intermediate steps. People cannot use the ocean for by guess and by god experimentation, its far too important. Every tin foil hat wearing flake will start thinking the ocean is open to test their personal theory. The risk of messing with nature is too great to not use caution, look at how much we humans have already screwed up, both scientists and laymen.
GLG
Well-Known Member
http://legalocean.haidasalmon.net/
Send in the jack boots..... Can't have HSRC (Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation) messin with mother nature that's the job of the oil companies, a spokesmen said from the government office of thought control and denial. We need the salmon to die out there so we can promote fish farms, offshore drilling and tarsands export to China. After all when the Salmon are gone there will be plenty of work for those that promote "economic action plan" advertizing. The media needs our commercials as where do you think the jobs are going to come from. Marketing is set to be the next big thing in Canada and is expected to be worth more then 20% of the GDP. The PMO office confirmed that the 2013 Budget sets out 2 Billion on a marketing program to tell Canadians that they know what there doing and its Oil, Coal and Natural Gas.
OK the last part I made up but the first part is from the HSRC website.
What part of Canadian is this kind of behavior coming from.
Sending in a swat team is way over the top.
How does a rogue plan work with “the best science watching and giving imputing on the monitoring of the project” if the best science is left in the dark about the methodology, many of the results and gold star science personnel involved so far? How do we keep careful watch and observe the project when even US and Canada authorities (and even university scientists) are left in the dark and may be kept in the dark in the future? Do you believe there is any responsibility on behalf of HSRC to be upfront with their plans with the general public, other First Nations, government and ENGOs? If it is being heralded as a great project then this should be no problem. How does this inspire any collaboration from knowledgeable academia that have to browse Google to find any information about what has been done so far?
It is disappointing to see such a lack of transparency with scientific information. If this was government or industry conducting business like this many people would be looking for blood. It is funny to hear the HSRC talk about the “intellectual condition of Canada” and “muzzling” when even they cannot be forthcoming with answers to fair questions about their research to Canadians. One would think that the HSRC would set a better example in this regard if it is claiming to have moral high ground.
Similar threads
