the potential for offshore aquaculture development in england

37
The potential for offshore aquaculture development – in England CEFAS Weymouth 13-10-09 Mark James Based on reports by James and Slaski commissioned by Defra and Seafish A strategic review of the potential for aquaculture to contribute to the future security of food and nonfood products and services in the UK and specifically England http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/aquaculture-report0904.pdf Appraisal of the opportunity for offshore aquaculture in UK waters http://www.frmltd.com/Docs/Offshore%20Aquaculture%20-%20Compiled%20Final%20Report.pdf

Upload: centre-for-environment-fisheries-and-aquaculture-science-cefas

Post on 09-May-2015

2.093 views

Category:

News & Politics


0 download

DESCRIPTION

By Mark James

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

The potential for offshore aquaculture

development –in England

CEFAS Weymouth 13-10-09Mark James

Based on reports by James and Slaski commissioned by Defra and SeafishA strategic review of the potential for aquaculture tocontribute to the future security of food and nonfood

products and services in the UK andspecifically England

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/aquaculture-report0904.pdf

Appraisal of the opportunity for offshore aquaculture in UK watershttp://www.frmltd.com/Docs/Offshore%20Aquaculture%20-%20Compiled%20Final%20Report.pdf

Page 2: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

First understand “inshore” !

What is the state of the art ?How is it conducted ?

A sense of scale, sophistication and cost!

Page 3: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

•14 ~90m cages each holding ~25,000 fish

•~50 tonnes of fish per cage

•~12-15kg/m cu stocking density

•probably holding 700 tonnes at max biomass

•Producing to different specs for major retailers

Page 4: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Top Secret !Processing

and Filleting Machines

Page 5: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Inshore works – why go offshore?

•Environmental concerns•Resource conflicts•Lack of availability of suitable sites for expansion

Current “reality” based on Scottish experience•Many environmental concerns have or are being addressed•Resource conflicts are increasingly receiving more objective consideration by planners and politicians•Operators are consolidating activity to fewer larger sites in more appropriate locations (>2,000t sites)•Site availability is often a matter of commercial territoriality and politics than a physical constraint•Still quite a lot of unused capacity at existing sites•Currently no obvious commercial investment/interest in developing “offshore” – higher costs and greater risks –•BUT – some movement to more exposed locations!

Page 6: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Hot off the press!

Marine Harvest proposing to invest up to £40m in developing exposed sites off the Outer Hebrides. Each of the new sites will be ~4,000t taking 4.5 million smolts per year. Personnel will live on site.

Page 7: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Inshore works – why go offshore?

Some potentially positive drivers:•“Unlimited” access to physical resource•Less regulation•Less impact on the environment •Less disease•Potential for very large farms and associated economies of scale

•In reality - little hard evidence to support such claims

BUT - Some strategic drivers that will affect the status quo!

Page 8: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Strategic Drivers – “The Perfect Storm”

Climate ChangeScale and Geographic Impact

EnergySupply – Demand = Energy Gap Human Health

Obesity and Age

PopulationSize and Demographic

To accommodate these changes that will take place within a generation we must take bold strategic decisions to secure sustainable food and non-food resources at national and regional level

Page 9: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

What does this mean for aquaculture?

16

19

14

15

16

17

18

19

per caput fish consumption

2002 2030

FAO per caput Fish Consumption Projection

20022030

180100

4040

0

50

100

150

200

million tons

Demand2030

Supply2004

Fish Demand/SupplyAquaculture

(Total 80m tonnes)

41

39 FreshwaterMarine Brackish

World – 2009 - 6.7 billion – 9.2 billion (27% increase) by 2050EU – 2009 - 495 million – 521 million by 2035UK – 2008 – 61 million - 77 million by 2060 (26% increase)

Page 10: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

What do we mean by “offshore”

and “open ocean aquaculture” ?

Site Class Significant Wave Height (Hs)(Meters)

Degree of Exposure

1 <0.5 Small

2 0.5-1.0 Moderate

3 1.0-2.0 Medium

4 2.0-3.0 High

5 >3.0 Extreme

Norwegian aquaculture site classification scheme (after Ryan, 2004). The average height of the highest one third of waves recorded in a given monitoring period. Also referred to as H⅓ or Hs.

Page 11: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Inshore works – why go offshore?

Key distinctions of offshore aquaculture (Muir, 1998).

Characteristics Coastal (inshore) Offshore aquaculture

Location/hydrography 05-3 km, 10-50 m depth; withinsight, usually at least semi-sheltered

2+ km (>1nm), generally within continentalshelf zones, possibly open-ocean

Environment Hs <=3-4 m, usually <=1 m; short period winds, localized coastal currents, possibly strong tidal streams

Hs 5 m or more, regularly 2-3 m, oceanic swells, variable wind periods, possibly less localized current effect

Access >=95% accessible on at least once daily basis, landing usually possible

Usually >80% accessible, landing may be possible, periodic, e.g., every 3-10 days

Operation Regular, manual involvement,feeding, monitoring, etc.

Remote operations, automated feeding, distance monitoring, system function

Page 12: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

After Ryan, 2004

Hs <0.5m

Hs 0.5 – 1.0m

Hs 1.0 – 2.0m

Hs 2.0 – 3.0m

OFFSHORE – CLASS 5 (Open Ocean Aquaculture)

Hs >3.0m

Page 13: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Parameters to be considered

•Physical – wave climate and current speed

•Biological – physiological requirements of stock, health and welfare

•Environmental – benthic impacts, carrying/assimilative capacity, wild interactions

•Legislative – UK/EU/International regulation and obligations

•Economic - financial viability – BIGGEST BARRIER!

•Technical – cage/pen – surface/submerged – remote operation

Page 14: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Physical Forces – wave climate

CLASS 1&2 inshore sites Hs <1.0m

CLASS 3 offshore sites Hs 1.0-2.0m

Page 15: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Wave Height vs Depth

Orbital motion created by waves decreases exponentially with depth

Surface

Seabed

Depth

Need to take into account forces acting on structures and stock – abrasion, scale loss – death, excessive energy consumption to hold station within the cage etc……

Page 16: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Physical Forces – current speed

Optimal current speeds for marine finfish cultivation <1.0 m/s

Page 17: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Current Speed vsDepth

Current Speed

Depth

Surface

Seabed

Greatest change in velocity

Page 18: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Combined effect –wave height and current speed

A comparison of an extreme open ocean conditions of waves and currents and sheltered site conditions (dotted line indicates that a submersion in the open ocean of about 31m will result in loads comparable with those at surface at a sheltered site (F/Fmax (horizontal) = maximum horizontal force, d=depth in metres, H = maximum wave height in metres and corresponding wave period, T in seconds, Uc = current velocity in meters per second) (after Ágústsson, 2004).

Ninian Central Platform in Block 3-3 of the North Sea - 100 miles east of Shetland, depth of 133m. Maximum wave height ~ 18m Current speeds ~ 0.8ms-1 at surface to 0.5ms-1, 10m above the seabed

Cages might need to be submerged >30m

Page 19: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Environmental factors

•Dispersion of waste given current speed maxima of stock and distance from seabed of possibly submerged cage may not be radically different to inshore

•Existing regulatory tools/models may not be suitable for application offshore

•Monitoring requirements may be more costly to implement

•Prevention of escapes – may be more problematic

•Fouling – need to minimise to reduce drag forces and maximise water circulation in cage

Page 20: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Legislation

• Probably an adequate regulatory regime to 3nm limit

•But questionable whether existing regulation is sufficient to cover aquaculture developments beyond 3nm

•Some WFD regulation may be transposable. Current offshore environmental regulation designed around oil/gas and more recently renewables – not suitable for aquaculture

• Notion that there will be less regulation offshore may not hold in reality……..

Page 21: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

EconomicsEconomic viability of offshore aquaculture is probably the biggest barrier to overcome

Model Example for a 10,000 t offshore farm:

Salmon – fast growing – high fillet yield•The unit cost of production probably in line with estimates of current Scottish inshore salmon aquaculture.•Cost £23.5 million to establish project•IRR 15%

Cod – slower growing – lower fillet yieldThe unit cost of production probably in line with estimates of current Scottish inshore salmon aquaculture.Cost £30.7 million to establish projectIRR 10%

Typically IRRs > 30% would be required to interest pure financial investors. Industrial investors already in aquaculturewould probably be content with IRRs of 15%+ if the technology was proven, but this is not the case with offshore aquaculture.

*Think of IRR as the rate of growth a project is expected to generate

Page 22: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

EconomicsSensitivity analysis revealed that sale price of product had thegreatest impact on profitability.

0%100%200%300%400%500%600%700%800%900%

% Change in Project IRR

Sales Price JuvenilePrice

Pen Cost Feed Cost

Effect of 10% Variation Above and Below Core Assumptions for Some Key Variables

Salmon Example - £2.75 down to £2.25/kg, IRR 27% to 3%. > £20 million upfront – marketing plan needs to be optimal to avert financial disaster!

Page 23: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Technical considerations

•Containment systems – cages/pens

•Remotely operated systems

•Some of this technology exists, is in use and could be adapted to offshore use (CLASS 3 and 4 sites)

•No commercial scale CLASS 5 (open ocean) technology exists for aquaculture

•Many systems designed by engineers – not fish farmers!

•Some too expensive to ever be economically viable

•Some technically too complex

•Some take no proper account of operational requirements – such as harvesting/feeding/treating for disease

•The graveyard for failed prototypes and commercial lemons is already large!

Page 24: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

polarCirkel® submersible cage is designed for sites subjected to rough weather, pollution, algal blooms, wide temperature variations, fouling, icing of cages and drift ice

Canadian Aquaculture Engineering Group (AEG – Canada). Above –plan view of six cages attached to framework and through a feed and service barge to a single point mooring system.

Gravity Cages

Page 25: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Farmocean cage deployed and diagram of cage showing complete system in side view

Diagram of structure of SADCO Shelf and deployed system at surface.

Gravity Cages – semi-submersible

Gravity Cages – fully-submersible

Page 26: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Diagram of Ocean Spar net pen – note the spar bouys at each corner, against which the net is tensioned.

Diagram of one segment of the conceptual MFRL design. This enclosure system would be by far the largest single cage unit if deployed

Anchor tension – cages and enclosures

Page 27: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Oceanspar cage submerged –designed to operate at Hs of 7m

Fish farm platform from Marina System Iberica – the Cultimar

Semi Rigid Cages

Rigid Cages

Page 28: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

OceanGlobe in service position at the surface and submerged

Conceptual Ocean drfiter cage and detail of spar

Page 29: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Only two or three of the forgoing designs have ever been successfully deployed for commercial scale fish farming

Izar Fene Semi submersible tuna/restocking ship – concept.

Izar Fene Semi submersible platform -concept

Page 30: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Shellfish – offshore?•In some respects – shellfish production may be more suited to offshore development than fish in the first instance.

•Submerged and semi submerged long line systems for mussels – a well thought through and properly resourced pilot scale demonstration project in CLASS 3 conditions is required – see Holmyard 2008

•10,000 hectare continuous long line mussel farm in the advanced stages of planning for deployment in ~6m Hs in NZ

•The potential to develop shellfish culture in association with offshore renewables development should be explored

- See Buck's work – associated with renewables

Page 31: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Algal biomass –offshore?

6 million Euro project - a drop in the ocean! This should be an area of major strategic national investment for the UK!

•Biofuels do not need to come from land

•Marifuels – bioethanol, biodiesel and more complex alcohols – biobutanol

•30 times more oil per hectare than current biofuel crops

•Cleaner, more easily degraded and more easily blended with mineral oils than terrestrial biofuel equivalents

•EU target for 5.75% biofuel content for transport by 2010 would require about 25% of EU arable land use!

Page 32: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

•ExxonMobile – recently announced $600million investment in development of biofuel from microalgae –a fraction of the cost of finding and exploiting a new oil

field!

Page 33: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Other non-food aquaculture futures !

Toyota is looking to a greener future — literally — with dreams of an ultralight, superefficient plug-in hybrid with a bioplastic body made of seaweed that could be in showrooms within 15 years.The kelp car would build upon the already hypergreen 1/X plug-in hybridconcept, which weighs 926 pounds, by replacing its carbon-fiber body with plastic derived from seaweed. As wild as it might sound, bioplasticsare becoming increasingly common and Toyota thinks it’s only a matter of time before automakers use them to build cars.

The Kelp Car

Page 34: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

A possible long-term (15-20 year) future

•Large scale macroalgal cultivation based on submerged long line or similar technologies

•Forming “natural” islands and harbours – creating conditions suitable for fish and shellfish cultivation offshore – possible synergies with other offshore renewable developments and infrastructure

•Some potential for realising multi-trophic aquaculture – Nitrogenous waste from fish farm helps to fertilisealgae. Organic waste from fish farm feeds shellfish

Page 35: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

A short to medium term goal (3-5 years)!

•A pilot scale project to be conducted within the 3nm limit. •Tested with existing cage and longline systems in appropriate exposed sites – must be strongly grounded by industry – with appropriate assistance from research community - a UK/national goal.•Take a more proactive role in engaging with international efforts – but remain focused on commercial realities at every stage – avoid the lemons!

•Above all – adopt a properly – nationally and, as far as possible, internationally co-ordinated approach.

Page 36: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

A final thought!

OFF-PLANET AQUACULTURE

Page 37: The potential for offshore aquaculture development in England

Thankyou for your attention!