Oceans of Opportunity https://oceanopportunity.com/ Wed, 29 Jul 2026 19:16:55 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://oceanopportunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/cropped-logo1-32x32.png Oceans of Opportunity https://oceanopportunity.com/ 32 32 Can we flush our negligence, or has Narragansett Bay really just gone to $#!T? https://oceanopportunity.com/can-we-flush-our-negligence-or-has-narragansett-bay-really-just-gone-to-t/ https://oceanopportunity.com/can-we-flush-our-negligence-or-has-narragansett-bay-really-just-gone-to-t/#comments Wed, 29 Jul 2026 01:31:31 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=14521 Bristol. East Providence. Aquapalooza. Three sewage-related closures in one season remind us that Narragansett Bay can absorb a great deal—but our negligence just won’t go down the drain. I spend a good amount of my working days on—and primarily beneath—Narragansett Bay. Down there, the world is reduced to a few honest things: water, muddy blackness,…

The post Can we flush our negligence, or has Narragansett Bay really just gone to $#!T? appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]>

Bristol. East Providence. Aquapalooza. Three sewage-related closures in one season remind us that Narragansett Bay can absorb a great deal—but our negligence just won’t go down the drain.

I spend a good amount of my working days on—and primarily beneath—Narragansett Bay. Down there, the world is reduced to a few honest things: water, muddy blackness, peaceful time with your thoughts, and whatever your own two hands can accomplish. The bay does not care about press releases, political talking points, or municipal budgets. It simply receives what we put into it.

And this season, the bay got dumped in to in a big way.

Three sewage related shellfish closures have now marked 2026: an accidental discharge from a pump station in Bristol, a massive sewer-main rupture in East Providence, and a precautionary closure for the annual Aquapalooza boating gathering off Prudence Island. The events differ in size and circumstance, but they all arrive at the same place—closed waters, threatened livelihoods, and another reminder that our relationship with the bay is only as healthy as the systems and choices surrounding it – it’s all a function of us.

Bristol: A Smaller Spill, a Long Closure

On April 24, approximately 5,000 gallons of untreated sewage discharged from the Mt. Hope Pump Station in Bristol and entered Mount Hope Bay. Rhode Island closed the affected portion of Shellfish Growing Area 17: waters north of a line from Mt. Hope Point in Bristol to Common Fence Point in Portsmouth. The Kickemuit River was not included. At the time of the incident, the closure notice said the area would remain closed until further notice which accounted for a full 21 days.

Twenty-one days may sound excessive for a 5,000-gallon spill in a bay containing billions of gallons of water. However, shellfish are not merely sitting in that water; they are filtering it. Quahogs, oysters and mussels filter tens to hundreds of gallons per day per animal and can concentrate the microorganisms around them. We cannot look at a clam and determine whether it is carrying a sewage-related pathogen. So, the water must move, the shellfish must cleanse themselves, testing must occur, and regulators must be satisfied that harvest can resume safely. 

East Providence: When Infrastructure Breaks

Then came East Providence.

On May 5, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management closed Lower Providence River Area 16E after a 20-inch force main ruptured near the East Bay Bike Path. Roughly 800,000 gallons—and by later accounts, more than 800,000 gallons of untreated sewage entered Watchemoket Cove and the Providence River. At the time of the official announcement, the discharge had been reduced but not eliminated, repairs were still underway, and the cause remained under investigation.

Area 16E is not a meaningless patch of muddy water. This section of the lower Providence River is currently among the most productive quahog grounds where more than 150 commercial harvesters make a hard earned living one bushel at a time. This area accounts for more than half of the state’s commercial landings. When the area closes, the income stops. The bay may eventually dilute the sewage, but it does not reimburse the shellfishermen – nor are the losses accounted for by any state agency or fishermen subsistence fund.

The closure ended May 15 after water and shellfish testing met national standards; thereafter commercial harvesting resumed May 18. Still, the event exposed more than just bacteria. It exposed the fragility of infrastructure we rarely think about until it fails which has proven to be the norm statewide in recent years.

An ecoRI News investigation later placed the spill within a broader discussion of aging sewer systems and public notification. We flush, the water disappears, and we assume the problem has gone somewhere else. On May 4, “somewhere else” was Narragansett Bay.

Aquapalooza: Pollution by Probability

The Aquapalooza closure is different—and exposes disturbing realities.

No broken pipe triggered it. No single confirmed discharge was identified. Instead, DEM preemptively closed approximately 700 acres off Prudence Island from sunrise July 24 through sunrise July 31. The closure stretched south and west from Providence Point to the northwest extension of Warner Avenue, around Potter’s Cove. The reason, according to the state notice, was the risk created by a dense gathering of recreational boats [and the presumption of irresponsibility]. As I say, “move the party, not the fishermen”.

Rhode Island is a no-discharge state for vessel sewage. Most boaters comply. But place enough boats into a small cove for enough hours and days and the odds of an accidental—or intentional—release rise. The state therefore closes the shellfish grounds for a week each year to accommodate the Aquapalooza event such that any waste can dilute and the shellfish can cleanse.

Think about that for a moment. We accept the gathering, anticipate that some people may discharge sewage, and close a public food resource around the expected behavior. In modern times, perhaps that’s considered prudent public health management. From my perspective, it’s a sign that Narragansett Bay is quickly going to $#!T with this behavior becoming normalized. 

The Human Element

On one hand, we shellfishermen well recognize that quahogs in particular favor nutrient rich waters. With the Bay becoming much ‘cleaner’ over the last couple of decades, nutrient loading is down, and consequently (no surprise) quahog numbers are down. This is one of nature’s great balancing acts, and it should be expected that the shellfish populations will shift to oyster-dominated as the Bay continues to clean up, much like prior to the industrial revolution.

However, it’s not just a movement of nutrient loads – the untreated sewage from these spill incidents can carry bacteria, viruses, protozoa and other pathogens. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that exposure can cause illnesses ranging from stomach cramps and diarrhea to far more serious disease. Filter-feeding shellfish create a direct pathway from polluted water to the dinner table. That is why management areas and their closures are so important, along with buying tagged shellfish from licensed dealers. Note: Rhode Island’s safe-shellfish guidance is worth reading.

But, this is not simply a food-safety story – it is a story about us.

The Bristol closure lasted 21 days after 5,000 gallons escaped from a pump station. East Providence lost about 10 days of commercial access, closer to two weeks, after more than 800,000 gallons spilled from a broken force main. Aquapalooza cost seven days and 700 acres because the risk of vessel sewage was foreseeable. Three closures. Three sources. One common denominator.

We are unable to flush our negligence.

We built the pipes. We deferred the maintenance. We operate the boats. We enforce [or ignore] the rules. And when those choices fail, we ask the bay to dilute the consequences. As they say – dilution is the solution to pollution. It’s a criminal mindset.

Narragansett Bay is resilient, but resilience should never be mistaken for permission. The answer is not to stop harnessing the Bay’s many gifts and precious resources that are indeed critical for our food supply and economy. The answer is to value it enough to prioritize maintenance of our sewer systems, funding reliable pump stations, expanding convenient vessel pump-outs, notifying the public quickly, and behaving as though the water beneath us matters.

Because it does.

The post Can we flush our negligence, or has Narragansett Bay really just gone to $#!T? appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> https://oceanopportunity.com/can-we-flush-our-negligence-or-has-narragansett-bay-really-just-gone-to-t/feed/ 2 The Sakonnet and the Sturgeon https://oceanopportunity.com/the-sakonnet-and-the-sturgeon/ https://oceanopportunity.com/the-sakonnet-and-the-sturgeon/#comments Sat, 20 Jun 2026 13:37:59 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=14456 On June 9th, 2026 I sat through the painful 4 hour hearing for the Coastal Resource Management Council’s (CRMC) assent of SouthCoast Wind’s application to run high voltage export cables up through the Sakonnet River. I very infrequently, if ever, attend these types of public hearings – not for lack of interest, rather that I’m…

The post The Sakonnet and the Sturgeon appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]>

On June 9th, 2026 I sat through the painful 4 hour hearing for the Coastal Resource Management Council’s (CRMC) assent of SouthCoast Wind’s application to run high voltage export cables up through the Sakonnet River. I very infrequently, if ever, attend these types of public hearings – not for lack of interest, rather that I’m always underwater all day and by the time I surface I just can’t be bothered with the obtusely disconnected perspectives of the environment that I literally just spent my entire day within. It is distinctly impossible to translate the compassionate perspectives gained by day to the political swamp by night.

In this case I felt compelled – I’ve seen things at the bottom of the Sakonnet River that many could not even contemplate exist (another topic) here in Rhode Island and wanted to catch up on the state of the State.

As expected, the CRMC motioned to approve the project. Now, I recognize full well that there are procedures in place that bind the manner of information gathering, and also political pressures to move certain decisions forward. However, we are all still human and must employ critical thinking in our decision making, especially as it impacts others and the world around us.

I went back to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) records to search for the nexus of where certain environmental issues in the Sakonnet appeared to be ignored or downplayed by the CRMC, and honed in on the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management’s (DEM) Advisory Opinion (SB-2022-02 – DEM Advisory Opinion – 2-7-25.pdf). Again, procedures are in place to capture and amass what we’ve come to be familiar with as ‘the best available science’ that guides decision making, so I do not fault any specific individual, rather here illustrate a systemic failure of even recognizing that precautionary principles warrant consideration.

The concluding advisory opinion reads, “The permit approval constitutes a determination that the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment with respect to those areas of environmental regulation under DEM’s jurisdiction.”

That’s a strong statement – implying that any harms are then indeed ‘acceptable’. Acceptable to whom?

Throughout the DEM Advisory Opinion, there are numerous statements of uncertainty, reading as follows:

“Impacts from these activities are not completely understood” (boulder relocation) – p. 9.

Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment

 “Variable, and sometimes contradictory results” regarding EMF effects – p. 11.

Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment

“Additional studies will be needed” for HVDC cable impacts – p. 11.

Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment

“It is not known” how sea turtles process EMF – p. 11.

Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment

“Sand lance vulnerability … is not well-understood” – p. 16.

Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment

“Impact of offshore wind in the Northwest Atlantic is relatively unknown” – p. 16.

Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment

“Occurrence of passerines … is poorly understood” – p. 17.

Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment

“Impact of offshore wind on these birds largely unknown” – p. 17.

Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment

“Currently unquantified risk for migrant landbirds” – p. 18.

Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment

Taken together, these passages show that DEM identified unresolved scientific questions while nevertheless concluding that permit conditions could mitigate impacts within DEM’s jurisdiction.

Who exactly will be answering these unanswered scientific questions? Well, no one.

The prevailing initiative is then to monitor and mitigate [impacts] thereafter, rather than preserve and protect first and foremost – a direct contradiction to our duty under nearly all environmental laws and ocean regulations.

Through that prevailing approach, conservation is essentially dead.

I raise these issues now given the sheer magnitude of the proposed project by way of land/seafloor area. The cable corridor when complete will be just a couple feet wide, and that end game is what advocates promote – a series of acceptable broad concessions to arrive at something apparently necessary and with minimal long-term impact. When projects reach this scale, drawing on outside comparisons—such as what https://au.trustpilot.com/review/pokies-australia-real-money.com tracks in customer feedback—can highlight how public confidence often depends on independent oversight. Though the area in question has been mapped to consider a 4000 acre area during construction and cable installation – sounds a little bit different in that context.

Construction isn’t clean, especially underwater. I’ve buried cables, excavated cables, cut cables, and all types of other things buried beneath the seafloor. In all instances, avoidance is the best policy. That means move the cable to begin with. If there is not a location that eliminates so much scientific uncertainty, then it’s not approved. Period.  

Unfortunately, massive political and economic forces are pushing us in this direction of perpetual environmental concessions, and it is horrifically misguided.

I will conclude just as I did with my statement at the hearing – what about the Atlantic Sturgeon? I’ll forgo a dissertation on the sturgeon here, but what a remarkable creature. It’s an endangered species and as applied to local waters, migrates in and out of the Taunton River via the Sakonnet and Mt. Hope Bay. Little is known about them because, well, they’re endangered so not too many around. The sturgeon bottom feed on things like crabs and are also sensitive to electromagnetic fields – both a direct contraindication to running high voltage cables throughout their entire migratory run. Yet, here we are, and without so much as a nod by environmental regulators despite prior state projects employing safeguards in the very same location. Here, the NMFS either dropped the ball with regard to inshore consideration for the cable run, or the State just forgot, or both, and it makes you wonder…

In 30 years and 6000+ hours on the bottom, I have encountered just one sturgeon. It was near the mouth of the Delaware River at about 70 feet of depth. We were recovering and redeploying ADCPs (acoustic doppler current profilers), an instrument used to model currents. Among the very barren and clay-like river bottom, a series of isolated ADCPs were operating, and the very little bit of EMF emitted from their batteries, sure enough, caught the attention of something big to come around. They would stay just out of sight in the midnight blackness of the river bottom. To we divers, raising alarms and making your heart skip a beat as we saw only a big 600 pound shadow in the distance. But then, barely caught with the beam of my light – a scale the size of a cellphone – phew! Not a shark, a sturgeon!

They have every right to call the ocean floor home, certainly moreso than we have any right to dig it up. Even our limited immersions to study, with isolated instrumentation, makes them question what we’re doing…so why don’t WE question what we’re doing?




The post The Sakonnet and the Sturgeon appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> https://oceanopportunity.com/the-sakonnet-and-the-sturgeon/feed/ 4 Overpopulation Nation. Do we need a Sea Station? https://oceanopportunity.com/overpopulation-nation-do-we-need-a-sea-station/ Sat, 20 Jul 2024 09:54:14 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=10258 This is a refreshed op-ed from its original publication in 2017; to expand on context related to modern and future subsea habitation as we reflect on the historical significance of the Sealab Program on its 60th anniversary. Call it one of those quirky fateful twists – as I started up my truck this morning [January…

The post Overpopulation Nation. Do we need a Sea Station? appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]>

This is a refreshed op-ed from its original publication in 2017; to expand on context related to modern and future subsea habitation as we reflect on the historical significance of the Sealab Program on its 60th anniversary.

Call it one of those quirky fateful twists – as I started up my truck this morning [January 6, 2017), the local radio was airing an interview with Frank Carini from EcoRI News (my favorite environmental watchdog) which was tackling the controversial subject of overpopulation. I haven’t written about this in some time, so figured that in the spirit of those fearful of what forthcoming environmental policy might look like, this would be as good a time as any to dive deep into the subject.

At the surface – at face value – overpopulation is very real. Those of us who have been around for a quarter to a half a century have felt the pressure everyday – just think about something as simple as traffic. It is very obvious that there is more traffic today than there was even 10 years ago, and this has added to personal anxiety and stress, as well as stress on our infrastructure, social behaviors, technological development, and environment.

According to Frank’s morning report, by 2050, the world population will be at 9 BILLION people. Today, we’re around 7 billion (as of 2017; today we’re around 8 billion – eek). Rewind to 1950, Planet Earth supported just 2.5 billion people. So, in just one century, we’re looking at the likelihood of greater than a 4-fold increase in human population. It doesn’t take rocket science to understand that this means 4 times the competition for basic human needs – food, water, shelter, and therefore 4 times the responsibility as a human race to account for this both for our own survival, and in a responsible manner that accounts for the natural resources that sustain us each and every day. The unfortunate reality may be that Planet Earth can’t sustain this type of population growth – carrying capacity for any given environment is a real thing. This very topic has been addressed by many scholars, summarized nicely by Livescience here: http://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html. All things point to a tipping point around the 10 billion mark – that isn’t too far away and will occur within many of our lifetimes.

So, what will happen? Well to use the fruit fly experiment analogy – once the population reaches its maximum sustainable level given the resources available within the closed system (Earth), a die-off will occur. This would be a humanitarian disaster, and nothing we want to think about. But, we HAVE TO think about this. I’m not advocating doomsday conspiracy theory adoption, but I am advocating that world leaders take a serious look at this and arrive at a cohesive and singular direction to carry humanity forward. In fact, a similar situation may be what has brought humanity to Earth to begin with…a panspermia if you will, or seeding of life here, to save a failed state elsewhere.

Lots of great overpopulation reads from Amazon.com

While it doesn’t take rocket science to see the problem, it will indeed take rocket science to solve the problem. Here on Earth, my personal opinion is that we’ve already failed from the perspective of adequate forward-thinking to implement the massive infrastructure enhancements required to sustain the 2050 population when coupled with the environmental changes we are seeing all around us – many of which are human induced. We [the people] can’t even get it together to project highway needs only a couple of years out – again, think about your morning commute anxiety. Who botched up that one?!? We need to think BIG, with massive changes and shifts in behavior if we are to engineer an Earth that can carry 10 billion people – if it’s even possible.

Food, water, shelter – and transportation – need to be addressed in a massive way. With the latter, transportation, it may be that our brainiac abilities to telecommute become more popular and we can sit around like blobs and think our way through the day. There is evidence of this if you look at the stats for just how much time we spend staring at our smart phones. So, that leaves the bottom rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – food, water, shelter – requiring acute attention. Scarily, these are the foundations of survival.

Food may become nourishment goop in a bag, fresh water may be harvested from the air (or sea), and shelter may just continue to build up. That’s the lazy man’s approach to survival of the fittest and will only prolong the inevitable problem. If, and when, Earth goes bust we may need to leave. It’s a sad reality, but also may be part of this epoch-old journey that humanity has been on to find a new idealism in the universe.

So, let’s figure we make the leap to Mars. That is the shortest leap, and we’ve had robotic scouting trips underway to take the first look. To take a human settlement leap requires technology that is only at its infancy here on Earth, and that is artificial life support [to breathe]. Food, water, and shelter can be limped through, but strip the air we breathe, and frankly, we’re screwed. To take Mars seriously, it needs a breathable atmosphere – terra forming should have been jumpstart years ago such that our arrival would be to a new Garden of Eden so to speak.

Many of these big issues can be acutely appreciated by divers – a diver can appreciate that we willingly remove the atmosphere taken for granted here on terra firma, and rely on its supply and management via an artificial means. Today’s diving state of the art – the rebreather, places an added element of atmospheric management responsibility on the diver, and it is this very technology that needs to be advanced to take us to Mars, or beyond, in a meaningful and permanent way. Rebreathers, at a grandiose scale, are exactly what sustain us here on land – the gift of photosynthesis hard at work.  It is deeply, deeply concerning that atmospheric management is not the number one priority for us as a civilization, evidenced by the gross imbalances we’ve created with industrial carbon emissions and destroying those environments that sequester carbon – oceans and rainforests. We can’t have it both ways which is the very premise of consumerism – to take. We need a far better balance with the planet all round – it only benefits us.

So, what better way to prepare for our giant leap towards human sustainability be it here or elsewhere [for better or worse] than to embrace advancements in diving. Diving has been a rather isolated field for centuries but if embraced as an academic field of study to make the advancements that need to be made, prioritizing a new life in the sea creates the ideal proxy to prepare us for that giant leap to Mars, and beyond.

Now, how to do that is an important subject for debate. As we reflect on now 60 years since the US Navy’s Sealab program, it’s important to recognize that the program’s success was in establishing how humans can adapt to pressure, and traverse to and from saturated states. As it has evolved, saturation diving (living and working while exposed to pressure) is most safely conducted from surface-based vessels. This is inarguably the most logical and safest means to perform under extreme pressures, and unlikely to regress to subsea stations that expose occupants to pressure in any broad capacity. That said, when we travel to space, very similar techniques are used to traverse spaces of pressure and vacuum, though these are at very minor pressure deltas – just a few pounds of pressure which is not much different that a transition to/from a shallow swimming pool. Traversing extreme pressure changes has already proven to require protecting the human from pressure and the myriad of technological hazards that are created when trying to adapt to it. By removing the effects of pressure on our physiology – we can travel virtually anywhere, and this has shown relevance with the gain in popularity of personal 1ATA submersible vehicles.

So, do we need a sea station to help combat our overpopulation nation? Well, it’s a compelling dream, though doesn’t solve any meaningful problems related to resource deficiencies to support 10+ billion people. Even at 1ATA, isolated from pressure, the added complexity of such an operation far exceeds what might be extracted from a city beneath the sea – it’s just not sustainable, and takes more than it can give.

From that perspective, the best thing we can do is preserve and protect the ocean by leaving it alone. Explore it to its fullest as we have been using incrementally improved technologies and techniques to search for answers that may help us live more sustainably all round and use these moments to inspire additional curiosity. But – shift to an aquatic species that is not adapted to pressure and requires huge expense to mitigate exposure risks? At the present time I think not… humanity must first get its $#!t together in a big way.

Well, better get going…sitting here like a blob at my computer isn’t helping much. Off to the shop, to the sea, and beyond!

I write for myself, but if you like it too you can help me refill my coffee to keep it coming: https://buymeacoffee.com/oceanopportunity

The post Overpopulation Nation. Do we need a Sea Station? appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> Portable Inflatable Habitats | some context from 2024 https://oceanopportunity.com/portable-inflatable-habitats-some-context-from-2021/ Sat, 29 Jun 2024 04:42:00 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=12451 In June–July 1964, Ed Link – businessman, inventor, philanthropist – conducted his second Man-in-the-Sea experiment in the Berry Islands (a chain in the Bahamas) with Robert Sténuit and Jon Lindbergh, one of the sons of Charles Lindbergh. Sténuit and Lindbergh stayed in Link’s SPID habitat (Submersible, Portable, Inflatable Dwelling) for 49 hours underwater at a depth of 432 feet (132 m), breathing…

The post Portable Inflatable Habitats | some context from 2024 appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]>

In June–July 1964, Ed Link – businessman, inventor, philanthropist – conducted his second Man-in-the-Sea experiment in the Berry Islands (a chain in the Bahamas) with Robert Sténuit and Jon Lindbergh, one of the sons of Charles Lindbergh. Sténuit and Lindbergh stayed in Link’s SPID habitat (Submersible, Portable, Inflatable Dwelling) for 49 hours underwater at a depth of 432 feet (132 m), breathing a helium-oxygen mixture. Dr. Joseph B. MacInnis participated in this dive as a life support specialist. The SPID, as the name implies, was a portable inflatable habitat, and was among the several projects through the 1960’s and 1970’s aimed at affording more efficient and effective manned diving operations via new techniques in saturation diving out in the deep oilfields, and also to serve as proxy experiments for the human space race.

Underlying these ambitious initiatives was the shared vision [among many, but not all] of making the technology accessible to diving scientists. Several habitats dedicated to science came and went through that period and into the early 1980’s, with the last standing being the Aquarius Reef Base (recently abandoned), and the Jules Undersea Lodge, both in the Florida Keys. They have much in common – primarily that they are fixed ‘permanent’ structures, meaning that their operations are limited to their current deployment locations. Both are important platforms that remain relevant to afford science and education opportunities related to living beneath the sea.

Saturation diving, all evolving from this golden era of 1960’s and 1970’s, evolved differently to meet the call of industry, with first applications in the offshore oilfields, and then more recently inshore within freshwater aqueducts and other specialized circumstances. This mode of diving involves use of mobile diving bells, often deployed from a ‘saturation vessel/ship’, where the divers remain under pressure in a deck chamber, and transit to/from depth in a bell. This is done for safety reasons and to allow the vessel to remain mobile and transit to the next work location without waiting for the divers to return from lengthy decompression at depth. This mobility is important for cost-effective mobilization, and it’s equally important as a scientist who wants increased capabilities, coupled with access to varied geography.

Common to modern saturation diving, and the science habitats, are relative comforts – both allow for a decent meal at the end of the day, a place to catch some sleep, afford some work space, and reasonable atmospheric and environmental regulation to make the uncomfortable stay as comfortable as possible. To accommodate all of this – for days or even weeks – requires lots and lots of topside support and infrastructure. That means it’s an expensive proposition, and the end has to justify the means – it’s costly to keep people living and working underwater. Industry can sustain this if and when the job warrants it, and science struggles.

Ed Link’s SPID always resonated with me – the idea of being portable by making the habitat structure itself a lightweight inflatable shell or envelope, with the balance of equipment required being relatively modular. The herculean effort to spend 49 hours at a depth of 432 feet is unfathomable – that was more than 50 years ago, and not much related has been done since.

Where did it go? Why did it disappear?

Knowing what I know now, I can speculate that a few issues came to play; one being diver comfort at depth, in the cold, and without the support of today’s saturation diving spreads. This is totally understandable. Two being safety – those guys were as out there on their own as you can get which can very quickly turn the stomach of a seasoned 21st century dive safety professional – also very understandable.

Since 1964, portable inflatable habitats were revisited a few times, principally in the cave diving community, as more modernized techniques in ‘technical diving’ allowed ambitious decompression dives to be carried out – from surface to surface. This means ‘saturation’ at depth is avoided and the divers commit to desaturating on the single dive before surfacing. The dives, and the required decompression can be very, very long – even upwards of a full day. With the longest required decompression stops being in the shallows, this became a demonstrated need to revisit portable inflatable habitat technology. Most notably in recent history was Bill Stone’s Wakulla Project. The project used a semi-portable inflatable structure to afford more comfort and control over tedious decompression requirements following very deep and log cave explorations. Similar efforts have taken place since, all principally in caves in large part given that small habitat structures can be wedged into the ceiling of the cave to maintain its position. That raises the biggest challenge with the technology – ballast and anchoring.

In my own work, which is principally in non-cave environments, I’ve realized the depth and duration boundaries that warranted a close look at the need for a decompression habitat, and the value is plain as day. Our first use was in 2012 as a capstone demonstration following several projects to investigate and document mesophotic coral ecosystems in the Bahamas to depths of 120 meters. With support from the National Geographic Society and Subsalve USA, we built up the Gen 1 ‘Ocean Space Habitat’ as a decompression station resting between 20 and 30 feet of water. It stands alone as the only similar deployment in openwater, and got us thinking seriously about full system mobility coupled with the issue of ballast and anchoring. Even a modest sized structure that can accommodate 2 people exerts substantial buoyant force, and this needs to be managed safely. I can only imagine that the SPID team faced similar challenges, albeit in over 400 feet of water.

Through multiple additional deployments for similar purposes, we were able to apply some know-how from the commercial diving sector to work through safe anchoring and rigging strategies. This remains challenging, but is location/environment specific, and can be achieved with nominal investment.

Over the last few years we’ve carefully considered the work from the last half a century, and believe there is a niche emerging to make use of this portable inflatable habitat technology in a more widespread way – this very well may be the ticket to more routinely afford science with the life in the sea capabilities dreamed about so long ago. The sweet spot isn’t ‘saturation’ per se – that requires creature comforts and costly infrastructure. It also is not ‘decompression’ – that’s a need for only the most experienced technical divers. For the average diving scientist or enthusiast, it’s about a newly immersive experience and time in the water.

Deployed in very shallow water, say 20 or 30 feet where no decompression limits are virtually infinite, portable habitats simply provide space – space to work, space to rest, space to interact, space to observe – and afford time. According American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS) statistics, the average scientific dive is about 45 minutes in length. That means that virtually all marine science data and observations, made by divers being there, to-date have been made within these little snapshots of time, and only those fortunate to have deeper pockets have been granted improved access with more sophisticated techniques. By simplifying the application of habitats to shallow water, and leveraging tools and techniques that are familiar, very readily available, and understood in today’s technical diving community, cost effective scientific diving excursions can reach a full day, overnight, or potentially several days with limited infrastructure and overhead costs. It’s not about depth or duration necessarily – it’s about the human value from the immersive experience.

This changes the game.

For perspective, I like the camping analogy – we certainly learn more from an overnight in the woods, than a short walk through the park. Until now, we haven’t had that opportunity, and it’s one that is so very important. Humanizing marine science means that the diver can become a more effective, and important tool for the job…we’ll see things we’ve never seen, have interactions we’ve never had, and catalyze renewed understandings of how ocean systems work – by becoming part of the system. This was very well illustrated by Dr. Tristan Guttridge and James Glancy during their recent work on Andros with hammerhead sharks, which was featured on Shark Week.



Progress means moving forward, and finding then filling the niche. In the case of underwater living for science, it’s taken literally 50 years of very literal ups and downs, but I’m confident that the sweet spot is not ancient history – it’s still in front of us – it’s simple, it’s palatable, it’s affordable, and it’s well within reach – an underwater camping trip.

In 2023, partnered with the University of Arizona, our team endeavored to explore this underwater camping concept further by mobilizing for a technical demonstration within their Biosphere2 Ocean facility. While challenging, we successfully demonstrated that its entirely feasible to literally ‘leave the beach’, set up camp, go about one’s day [underwater], then retreat to camp for the overnight to rest and regroup for the next day. Thereafter, we break it all down and return to the beach. Mind you, this mobilization effort requires some advance effort to place ballast, though in its entirety the operation is relatively easy and very low impact relative to the placement of a big and more permanent structure.

 

Where the future lies, I just don’t know. However, becoming apparent is that ‘technical diving’ and the mindset that comes from it may afford tremendous opportunities to revisit human-ocean interactions in ways just not historically feasible. Full work shifts can be spent immersed within coastal habitats, and without the expense previously incurred. It’s exciting for certain, though it will take continued demonstrations of its scientific value to determine if it’s needed. For the interim – and it’s an offer I’ve left on the table for everyone throughout the science community – come on out. If spending a full workday underwater holds any value, we can do it TODAY, and are more than happy to help move this important work forward.

The post Portable Inflatable Habitats | some context from 2024 appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> Back to Basics – Understanding Why We Do Not have Big Permanent Underwater Habitats Today https://oceanopportunity.com/back-to-basics-understanding-why-we-do-not-have-big-permanent-underwater-habitats-today/ Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:24:24 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=13450 Given my own recent activity in the field of undersea habitation, I’ve received numerous inquiries as to my thoughts on permanent undersea stations, so have taken some time to summarize here. My perspective is a bit cynical, though comes from having developed, operated, and generated intellectual property behind our own habitat technology, while making a…

The post Back to Basics – Understanding Why We Do Not have Big Permanent Underwater Habitats Today appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]>

Given my own recent activity in the field of undersea habitation, I’ve received numerous inquiries as to my thoughts on permanent undersea stations, so have taken some time to summarize here. My perspective is a bit cynical, though comes from having developed, operated, and generated intellectual property behind our own habitat technology, while making a fruitful living as a working diver (with 7000+ hours on the bottom) and diving scientist for my entire life.

First – what are we talking about? 

An underwater habitat is popularly considered a large rigid structure affixed to the seafloor which provides a space for human occupancy. A seafloor station of sorts, purported to offer some advantage to humans in their exploration of the ocean realm by allowing long duration occupancy at any given depth from which they might come and go from the outside watery world. For the layperson, it is important to recognize that there are Ambient Pressure Habitats (APHs), and also one-atmosphere habitats (1ATA). The difference between the two is significant. An APH leaves the occupants subject to the outside water pressure, just like going on a SCUBA dive. A 1ATA system eliminates this exposure to pressure, just like going in a submarine.

There have been several proposed APHs in recent years – throughout my entire professional diving career actually – and often proposed by those considered expert enough to mount such a program. There are elaborate and intriguing renderings of these undersea ‘space stations’ flooded throughout the internet, and yet, as of this writing – they do not exist.

Big dreams aside, it comes down to ‘need’ if there will ever be such a platform that is technologically and operationally sustainable, or even only semi-routinely utilized. These are some facts to motivate hopefully thought-provoking discussion:

1. Deep/long duration dives are carried out every day, in present times, using mobile saturation diving techniques. This technique involves the use of a pressurized bell (TUP-transfer under pressure) deployed from a ship, allowing the divers to spend all day working at the given depth, then return to the safety of a pressurized habitat back on the surface aboard the ship. By maintaining the divers at a ‘storage depth’, they can freely spend any needed amount of time at depth, typically for up to about a month at a time.

This technique directly evolved away from the previous habitat push 50 years ago, when the private sector, defense sector, and commercial sectors were seeking to exploit this fascinating concept of living underwater. Among many discoveries was revealing that returning divers to the surface was not incidental given the fundamental need to ‘desaturate’ (or release gasses dissolved into tissues – decompression) which can take numerous days once ‘saturated’. To do this from an ambient pressure habitat (APH) at any modest depth requires the very same mobile saturation diving systems employed routinely today to maintain control over the depressurization rates so people aren’t killed. Lessons have already been learned the hard way. 

There are existing technologies and techniques that allow this controlled decompression while submerged when coupling both 1ATA and APH capabilities. This process is referred to as a ‘lock-out’ and exists within ‘lock-out submarines’. For instance, today, wet divers can exit and re-enter a mobile nuclear submarine for defense purposes. Regardless of where this desaturation or decompression process occurs, the divers still require a mechanism to return to the surface, and then be brought back aboard some type of surface vessel for the transit home – including emergently.

For readers drawn to how regulation and verified procedures reduce risk in complex operations, a concise guide to licensed, safety-minded operators in a different domain can be instructive; see https://melbourneartnetwork.com.au/best-online-casino-websites-australia-review/ for a practical overview of licensed online casinos, bonus terms and payment methods in Australia.

In very shallow water, generally there is no decompression requirement. Jules Undersea Lodge, an APH stationed in the Florida Keys, operates at a very shallow depth, and consequently occupants of the space are free to surface without any significant physiological risk. At moderate depths, such as the Aquarius Reef Base, there is a procedure for decompression within in the habitat, then rapid re-compression before surfacing using SCUBA techniques. Beyond this depth, it is inherently unsafe from an environmental and physiological standpoint to ascend from an APH by simply diving one’s way out while exposed in the water column for what could be more than 24 hours before reaching the surface. Therefore, a pressurized transfer bell is needed, which is the very same system used in mobile saturation diving every day. In the event the desaturation is carried out via a lock-out/lock-in procedure, the transfer would be made via a 1ATA bell or submersible, both requiring substantial topside capabilities for recovery, analogous to launching a small submarine.

This begs the question – if a mobile sat station is required for safe or emergent egress/recovery of saturated persons from an APH, then why leave them on the bottom overnight when they are sleeping, or even alone for days when exposed to potentially serious risks? They can return to the safety of a ship, remaining under pressure, to avoid inclement weather or tend to any health and safety issues in a controlled environment, and head back to depth when ready to perform required tasks. This has been routine practice for multiple decades as the direct evolution away from APHs, and can be repeated almost indefinitely to afford full work days at depth.

Given the saturation diving technique needed to recover occupants from an APH, an APH itself then becomes a liability since the same work tasks can be conducted from the same surface vessel already on station. This liability is a huge added expense to an already effective technique, and with no clear benefit, other than perhaps the excitement of sleeping with the fishes.

Range extensions away from a ‘base’ are something different and falls in line with 1ATA technology capabilities – this is something else altogether subject to separate discussion. However again, 1ATA systems (personal subs or suits) are routinely at work today and can cover massive amounts of geography on a single excursion, thereafter returning to the safety of the surface.

2. We have APHs today that are not used to their fullest capacity – not because there’s anything wrong with them, but because there is not a critical mass of requirements substantiating the need for routine use of the technology in single locations. Those few remaining habitats today represent the end of an important era, which proved hugely valuable – it evolved into mobile saturation diving which has become the mainstay of deep diving intervention for industry globally. From a scientific standpoint, this same mobility is an absolute requirement to maximize diversity of scientific end uses of long periods of time underwater. This is evidenced by the limited (though important) use cases of the Aquarius Reef Base. Scientists will attest to the surrounding areas having become barren, and littered from past experiments – this is from high diver traffic [human impact]. Therefore, we have observed trends in field research making more use of recreational diving tools (SCUBA) to easily visit a wide variety of sites around the world, rather than heavy focus on a single area. There are limitations to this, though will be broadened as ‘technical diving’ is more widely embraced within the science community, either directly or via citizen science partnerships. Also important to note is the divesture of NOAA from Aquarius and related programs. The US government has had interests in ‘manned’ intervention previously through both the Manned Undersea Science and Technology (MUST) and NOAA Undersea Research Program (NURP) – both are long gone. There failed to be a widespread scientific demand substantiating the cost of elaborate and complex wet diving techniques staged at specific labs or stations. I personally watched this program go belly up, having spent considerable time within the NURP system and performing technical diving activities that were exciting, but just didn’t justify massive investments to scale up the capability within the science sector, nor entice strategic industry partnerships that might benefit from the niche capability.

A head scratching fact is that there are far greater diving capabilities within the sport diving sector than within the hands of scientists. This leaves a systemic cultural know-how and regulatory issue preventing science from benefitting from already available techniques that would massively expand ocean data sets. IMHO – added acute complexity and expertise required for APH incurs overhead costs that are just not justified to a community that wants geographic diversity.

3. Seeking mobility, then why not use the above referenced saturation diving systems for science? Two reasons – they are too expensive relative to current science funding allocated to undersea research, and the training requirements rightfully limits the experience to career sat divers. Most scientific divers spend just one to two weeks per year in the field, and at that have difficulties committing to basic proficiency requirements for even shallow dives. Consequently, the personal submarine market has expanded in the last two decades. Personal submarines do not require the extensive infrastructure or training required to employ saturation diving techniques. The occupants are passive guests in the hands of a pilot/operator and can visit the depths for virtually any length of time, and return to surface quickly, without physiological risk. A scientist who isn’t expert in deep diving systems can see these environments firsthand, and then go home, without substantial training beyond a safety briefing. This of course isn’t perfect – while we benefit from the human eye and critical thinking capacity on site, we do not have the dexterity that comes from the human hand. To-date, this degree of spatial manipulation still requires being ‘wet’. Several initiatives have proposed mobile saturation concepts differing from TUP techniques. Just one was SATFADS (Saturation Fly Away Diving System), a US Navy initiative which would cross bridge to support US science interests…it did not materialize to support scientific end-users.

4. This further begs the question – since industry is satisfied with mobile sat, what non-industry related interests might provide sufficient funds to subsidize an undersea base, or even the use of mobile saturation, to afford the human hand? Many think pharmaceuticals. I can say definitively, having placed numerous dozens of biologics within both academic and industry pipelines, that the collection of biologics alone is not a revenue positive undertaking. It’s much like prospecting for gold, except with a 10-20 year net-negative research pipeline prior to any hint of commercialization. Collectors relinquish most of the rights since it’s the laboratory work that scales value. Today, only a speck of tissue is needed for this type of work – that’s a one shot dive in any given area with no need to return, ever, and the follow-on screening or protein expression activities can be carried out in a lab. In large part, the deepwater collecting can be done with a Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs), though there are challenges in collection tooling and preservation of tissue in situ. These same tooling issues are present with personal subs. There are significant advantages to a person collecting cryptic specimens, though again, there is presently no requirement to scale this front-end acquisition. Current marine pharmaceutical pipelines are backlogged – there are hundreds, possibly thousands of isolated compounds that warrant additional study – I have a freezer full. Those development pipelines require huge capital infusions, all net negative for a very long period of time. Biological prospecting of novel environments is important, though a tiny element of a very large industry that does not currently practice a circular economy. There is hope that this changes, though is in the hands of global political actions and identifying mechanisms to actually enforce the Nagoya Protocol with traceability of tissue origins.

Other proposed use cases are said to warrant these undersea stations – aquaculture, tourism, education, resource mining, data centers, possibly archaeological investigations. In large part I think it’s becoming obvious that industrialization of the ocean is damaging – oil/gas, now wind, large scale mining, farming, trawling – adding more permanent structures doesn’t help the environmental cause, and none of these sectors has established activities warranting the ‘need’ for adjunct occupied APHs. Well-established techniques are used, routinely, and an APH does not offer a cost advantage to sway industry routines. Today, we have vast arrays of sensor and robotic networks providing information without having to keep a person underwater indefinitely. A single fiber optic strand, thinner than a human hair, allows gigabit level data transmission. Placing expensive production studios, laboratory equipment, or other human operated devices underwater where they are subject to condensate and exponentially increased maintenance costs just isn’t required – it adds unnecessary complexity and therefore expense to achieving the very same objectives.

5. There are often parallels drawn to manned space exploration, implying that living in a subsea station is just like living on the space station. It’s actually very, very different when studying the nuances. Space can be argued as a steppingstone to reach further frontiers, and we need to understand how to operate within that envelope if we are to take those steps – absolutely! Indeed, humanity may have to become a multi-planetary civilization to survive at growing scales. However – we’ve already been to the bottom of the ocean, and we’ve already identified the maximum limits of human physiology [50 years ago]. In fact, the entire field of hyperbaric medicine was an evolution from prior APHs. Today, hyperbaric medicine is carried out in clinical or laboratory settings – we do not need to live at depth to better understand physiology, though those data sets are useful when captured opportunistically. When habitats are used as space analogs today, it’s to study human factors and psychology of confined space living, with the benefit of pseudo weightlessness outside. That’s a useful proxy, but both of those are also routinely studied on land or in test tanks and don’t require tens to hundred-million-dollar investments. Even today, NASA employs the use of the Aquarius Reef Base, in moderately shallow water, only on a sporadic basis to fulfill its requirements of space analog missions.

While huge expanses of the ocean have not been visited by people, we [humanity] already have a full complement of technology platforms at our disposal which can access these areas safely. The outstanding duty we have is to actually put them to work in a meaningful way and make incremental improvements such that they are valuable and viable intervention tools. Many intervention systems sit idle for very long periods of time because of their already significant expense and complexity.

If there’s a ‘need’ for habitation, it comes from a tiny crack in the subsea intervention space where someday it might be more cost effective to stay put and avoid the transit time to/from surface when working on the bottom – this is well outside the capabilities and scope of APHs, and applies uniquely to 1ATA systems. This technology, which spans subs to atmospheric suits to potentially 1ATA habitats, is still in its infancy. Albeit a moon-shot, Phil Nuytten’s 1ATA Vent Base Alpha presented a scenario for mining where a station might be maintained adjacent to a thermal vent with energy harvested from the thermal vent used for sustenance. It’s a thought-provoking concept, and shines light on some realities – autonomy in power generation and regenerable life support are areas requiring strategic investments. Though again, do we ‘need’ it – the miners already do what they do.

There’s a big difference between needs and wants, where needs can benefit from business interests and investments, and wants benefit from philanthropic intent. Ocean interventions require a balance of the two that I don’t believe we have at a broad societal level.

Perhaps, and hopefully, someday.

On the interim – my honest opinion – think top-down, rather than bottom-up, and that will reveal the path to advance human intervention. By that I’m referring [with some bias] to my own work on underwater habitats. We’ve gone down a path in highly portable lightweight habitats that represents an incremental forward extension in the field of ‘technical diving’. These structures allow us to maximize the potential of current wet diving technology used commonplace in the recreational diving sector, namely rebreathers. Since 2012, we’ve taken demonstrable steps to make this a viable concept and have built and deployed multiple systems successfully – allowing full days spent underwater. This is very different than APHs, as they are not used to ‘saturate’ a diver at depth, rather they are used to push a diver’s ceiling (the depth at which they cannot ascend past without physiological detriment) ‘down’. Strategic implementation of this technique allows the well-trained modern diver to spend literally all day underwater within routinely accepted sport diving depths. Multiple days can now be spent underwater without significant expense, afford very long durations all throughout the routinely visited wet diving depths, impose virtually no environmental impact, and cost nil relatively speaking.

The challenge to all those pursuing big habitats – prove that it’s needed – prove that we need a person on the bottom for a full day and need an APH to do it. Outside of industry (who employs mobile saturation diving) if we don’t need a person on the bottom in 60 feet of water for 8 hours, then we certainly don’t need a person on the bottom in 600 feet of water for 8 hours. It’s a very challenging proposition, though demonstration (if needed) does not require 7+ figure investments – we can afford multiple days underwater NOW – where is the need? I don’t have that answer, though assume it will reveal itself in time (on the bottom).

The post Back to Basics – Understanding Why We Do Not have Big Permanent Underwater Habitats Today appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> the ups and downs of mooring work https://oceanopportunity.com/ups-downs-mooring-work/ Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:40:14 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=10338 Tis the season – water is still cold, brisk morning starts, and a glimpse of spring come afternoon – and the long days out on the water have kicked off. This time of year is a big focus on one thing…mooring work. What is mooring work? Well, for those landlubber readers, a mooring itself is…

The post the ups and downs of mooring work appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> Tis the season – water is still cold, brisk morning starts, and a glimpse of spring come afternoon – and the long days out on the water have kicked off. This time of year is a big focus on one thing…mooring work.

What is mooring work? Well, for those landlubber readers, a mooring itself is the permanent anchor set out on the water where folks will tie up a boat that stays on the water for some period of time. Its anatomy consists of some type of heavy bottom tackle, most often a ‘mushroom’ anchor, though at time concrete blocks, or helical screws hydraulically driven into the bottom; a shot of heavy ‘bottom chain’, which rests on the bottom and rarely moves unless there is a major tide or storm; a shot of ‘top chain’ which is a lighter gauge than the bottom chain and as the name suggests, it runs up to the surface; then a short shot of ‘through ball chain’ or the chain that runs through the floating plastic ball; then a pair of pennants, and finished with a ‘pick up stick’ or the device that can be reached while on deck of the boat being moored while the pennants are being fixed to cleats.

The work itself takes place in two rounds during the year. In the winter time (end of boating season), each ball and pennant is removed and brought back to land to be cleaned up, services, repainted, and stored until being redeployed in the spring. During that time, the chain itself is dropped to the mud so that it will not wear while not in use all winter. A line with float, or ‘winterstick’ is left tied to the chain so it can be found easily in the springtime. In the spring, that would be now, all of the mooring chains are dived on to provide a visual inspection of the chain’s conditions, chain and other worn hardware is replaced as necessary, and the actual floating ball is re-deployed.

Mooring work is literally back-breaking work. Despite the help of winches, davits, cat heads – tools of the trade on a good mooring boat – the work involves humping a lot of heavy steel chain and hardware and there’s no getting around it. You get wet, it can be cold, barnacles tear through gloves, and the stink…oh man the stink is incredible. The mud in many mooring fields is thick organic nastiness and it ends up on everything. That’s the topside glory…underwater is no picnic either. Every mooring is dived on. That accounts for say 10 to as many as 30 quick bounce dives in a day, from say 5 feet of water to up to 60 feet of water for here in Rhode Island anyway. I’d say the average depth is about 20 feet of depth. The most moorings I’ve dived on in a single day is 40, and in hindsight based on how I felt after that day I was probably bent (decompression sickness or DCS) for obvious reasons…it wasn’t the time on the bottom, it was all the ups and downs.

The ups and downs are quick. Typically, the most convenient mode to dive is hookah to either a standard second stage regulator, or a fullface mask. Occasionally we’ll use communications, but most often you are flying solo with one person topside. As simple as the dives are, they are incredibly hard on the body. Most often we dive with no fins, so jump off the side while diving heavy (to drop quick and dig in to bottom for leverage while working), go hand over hand down the chain and inspect every link as we go. Once hitting the bottom, there can be any number of surprises…the bottom chain could be stretched out nicely making life easy, or it could be all wrapped up on the bottom tackle. When the latter, the diver takes some time to unwrap the heavy mess and stretch it out to allow for a thorough visual inspection. Then we resurface, report results, and carry on. In instances where chains or hardware need to be replaced, we cut chain to length with a torch, determine the best way to rig the chain to get it where it needs to go, then make the switch. Old shackles can be stubborn and at a minimum require using a crow bar and pipe wrench to break them, at times we break out the hydraulic grinder or when desperate, a hacksaw.

So, down-up, down-up, down-up several tens of times a day throughout April and most of May and you definitely get into shape, but pick up some serious bumps and bruises along the way. What I love the most about mooring work is its inherent nature in improving your fitness to dive…not only physical conditioning, but in psychological preparedness for working immersions. Visibility is typically poor – from zero to maybe a few feet – you work by feel, and become very in tune with underwater situational awareness – relative placement of your air hose to the chain, to any tools brought with you, and so on. In that sense, each dive is very much like an art. What I also love about mooring work is that you become so in tune with performing and executing on the dives, that you begin to embrace the idea that the equipment is just for performance enhancement of individual capabilities – i.e. you are not dependent on the equipment, rather it allows you to simply extend personal capabilities. With that, you become much stronger in the water, much more in tune with diving technology as an augmentation of human capability, and have entered a state of readiness that is needed to carry through the rest of the heavy work season.

Who knew mooring work was so rewarding?!? Thousands of ups and downs staring at chain and digging in hard since age 17 will teach you a lot about life. Add in some salty colleagues and a boy becomes a man virtually overnight.

Now, some may argue that it’s menial grunt work and that they are above mooring work. Well, I’d argue that if you can perform while waist deep in the mud and schlepping 200 pounds of chain around in zero visibility and do a quality job, you can do just about anything…I view this type of work as a litmus test for the rest.

One controversial element of this type of diving is where it lies with regards to health and safety regulations. Yes, it is a working dive, so is ‘commercial’ in nature. However, the standard of practice by those in the field does not fit the commercial diving regimen. That would be incredibly cost-ineffective, and no one would then have the luxury of inshore recreational boating. The means and methods are analogous to husbandry activity associate with aquaculture facilities, whose regulations fall under agriculture statutes rather than diving regulations, though interestingly neither have been well-defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. One reason for this is that the nature of the work requires working from a boat, where there are typically no ’employees’ – only men [and women] of the sea, where labor laws are every shade of gray. Those engaging in the work are largely operating while assuming their own risk – though with a remarkable safety record mind you. So much so that other industries should consider these working dive methods as a unique standard of practice that has applications in other work segments.

Well, I’m beat for today. Back at it tomorrow, where things are looking both up and down.

 

The post the ups and downs of mooring work appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> recollections from the bottom up https://oceanopportunity.com/recollections-from-the-bottom-up/ Sat, 25 Mar 2017 00:45:02 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=10325 When the phone rings, it could be just about anything… I’ve answered calls that have resulted in gearing up and on a flight to Central America within 2 days, headed offshore on a rickety fishing boat within 2 hours, and asked to review a major construction project that is 2 years out. You never know…

The post recollections from the bottom up appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> When the phone rings, it could be just about anything…

I’ve answered calls that have resulted in gearing up and on a flight to Central America within 2 days, headed offshore on a rickety fishing boat within 2 hours, and asked to review a major construction project that is 2 years out. You never know what might come up next. The important thing is being ready to jump – always remaining in a state of readiness to say ‘yes’. The first time you say ‘no’, your name goes to the bottom of the pile and it could be quite some time before the phone rings again.

So, that makes things interesting. While those of us living the life aquatic are always sculpting, crafting, and maneuvering for the next big project, it’s often the little stuff that keeps the doors open, keeps us proficient, and keeps us ready.

When the phone rang on Friday, I had my guard down. This was mostly since it had been a long and slow winter, and the springtime push for local dive work hadn’t kicked in quite yet. I had my weight harness stripped down to install some new hardware, my cylinders were empty next to the fill station, and my camera battery wasn’t juiced up. Sure enough – someone needed a quick inspection and photo of the condition of a transducer on their hull. So, despite not being as ready as I like to be, I made it all happen and was on site, suited up, and waist deep putting on my fins in under 2 hours…not too shabby.

Working on vessel bottoms is often times poo-poo’d by ‘real divers’, as though the task is beneath them. While it is grunt work for certain, personally, I think the inshore quick hits like this are the best training a working diver can get, and are the best way to stay proficient…you can dive with very lean equipment spreads, it’s often hard work, and as mundane as some tasks can be, others require really thinking things through and using physics to your advantage.

As I slid down the embankment adjacent to the pier, I had a vivid recollection of some of the ‘early days’ where dives like this were very foreign to me, but never dissuaded my continued interest in diving deeper – no pun intended. Garbage floating in the water, dead seagulls wedged up into the embankment, broken glass threatening to cut your suit, a slick of diesel at the surface, the cold piercing the skin around your lips, the loud rumble of a generator running on the vessel, the scrapes against an inch or more thick of barnacles…sounds lovely, yes? In this case, to make things even more delightful, it was low tide. So, the fine smell of low tide at a busy commercial fishing pier coupled with having to grind my way under the hull to get to the transducer in question made for quite the pleasurable dive. I’ve done far worse, believe me. But the recollection of previously being very cautious and nervous about squeezing and grinding beneath and around structure just resonated through my brain for this one. Every time you do it, you tell yourself that it’s the last time and you wont do it again.

My work area against the hull was only about 10″ off of the muddy bottom. That meant a tight fit for me, but then a bit of strategic maneuvering to not silt out the photo subject – that damn transducer. Once I found it (by feel of course), my task was to assess its condition and determine if there was any obvious damage that would leave it not working – perhaps the vessel hit something, or the transducer was excessively fouled with debris. Neither was the case, fortunately, so I scraped it clear of some crusty barnacles, and then sat still, wedged into the mud, waiting for a window of opportunity where the water might clear up enough for a few quick photos to share with the captain. Fortunately, patience paid off and I got the shot.

Squeeze back in between the hull and bottom and up the embankment I go. Get undressed, dry off, find captain, share photos, up-sell future services, go home. Two hours to get ready and mobilize, a whopping 5 minutes in the water, half hour to break it all down, and a day’s pay later…there I was.

So, on the drive home, I kept recounting the hundreds, if not literally thousands, of similar dives I’ve made over the last two decades. Mundane, perhaps. But most importantly, it’s all been training for something better, and has provided for a degree of proficiency needed to be in that state of readiness for the big one. And, when out on those bigger missions, I almost always reflect on the journey that brought me there…it’s all been about time in the water – time to reflect, and time to find my way. As much as we keep building and waiting for the big one, the real value is in the journey to get there, one dive and one day at a time.

The post recollections from the bottom up appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> the smells and the sounds of a day welding in the mud https://oceanopportunity.com/smells-sounds-day-welding-mud/ Sat, 25 Feb 2017 21:13:28 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=10302 As hard as the days can be, the entire experience of a days worth of diving in the mud is nothing short of value packed. And after a hard days work, the level of appreciation for having the opportunity is always elevated. This past week’s activities: wet welding. I’ve written about underwater welding a few…

The post the smells and the sounds of a day welding in the mud appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> As hard as the days can be, the entire experience of a days worth of diving in the mud is nothing short of value packed. And after a hard days work, the level of appreciation for having the opportunity is always elevated. This past week’s activities: wet welding.

I’ve written about underwater welding a few times, but figure its worth elaborating upon a bit given that it’s fresh, and as I sit here to write I am still suffering in the aftermath. I’ll start by saying that welding is not my strong suit, but it is one of the things I enjoy the most about commercial diving. There are so many subtleties to the process in that it requires a very slow hand, patience, focus, grace and at the same time is incredibly harsh on the body.

Here in inland diving territory, we call it ‘mud diving’ because in most cases the bottom is a muddy mess and much of the work takes place in near zero visibility. That means working by feel. After hours upon hours of working in the blind, your situational awareness becomes dialed in, and you can do almost anything by touch alone. This includes welding…checking the fitment of parts for gaps, striking an arc, and moving the rod can all be done by feel, even through a doubled up pair of thick rubber gloves…it’s a pretty amazing thing to think about, especially when you see positive results.

This past week made me think about other senses, and dialing in their adjustment to the conditions at hand. Of note – the smells and sounds of working underwater.

The footprint to hat up during inshore SSA ops.

At the surface, the job site is almost always loud – compressors and other machines running, squeaky feedback over the comm box, the splash of a tool bucket dropped in the water…all sounds taken for granted as part of the routine. It’s chaotic – lots of yelling to be heard over the ambient noise which only adds to mounting frustration and discontent amongst already disgruntled members of the ‘team’. However, slip into the hat (diver’s helmet), and then underwater, and it truly is a silent world. All of the ambient noise disappears and you settle in to the rhythm of your own breathing, and very short muffled discussions over the comm box. When welding, you add the stink stink of a chipping hammer to clean surfaces or knock the slag off of welds, and then of course the sizzle of the welding rods burning. The pitch and tone of that sizzle can tell you lots about the weld – which is important when you can’t always see it. Too much sizzle and the weld is likely full of spatter with holes burned through the steel. Nice welds have a sound and feel that is smooth…it’s a hard balance to find, and like anything, it comes with time in the water.

And then there are the smells…topside the musty funk of a damp wet or hotwater suit is so inviting (really, it is) first thing in the morning. The morning air is crisp, and the smell of gasoline, oils, and that funky suit fill the air. There is nothing better…it’s the start of a perfectly peaceful day. Then, slip underwater and one would think the smells vanish. To the contrary, your sense of smell becomes very sensitive. While mucking up the bottom, you can smell and even taste the essence of rotten seafood through the hat. Wonder why I don’t east seafood? Try breathing clam chowdah 8 hours a day. Add in the steam and sweat from diving with hotwater suits, and that rotten seafood stink becomes a part of you. At the day’s end, the smell follows you home, and it’s embedded in your hands.

Hands are a separate issue. Every nick in your gloves is a place to take a hit from the 180 amp welding circuit. The burn is tolerable but does a job on any small cuts, warts, blisters, and cracks – basically cinges the open skin. That makes great space for oil and grit to embed itself. After a week you learn to live with it. After a decade or more your hands are harder than rocks…subject for another essay.

As hard as it sounds, while ‘in it’ you learn to appreciate just how special the experience is. All of those smells and sounds that drive many people away from the business become what you thrive on, it becomes a drug. Once you’re in it and live it, there’s no going back; only deeper, and forward, towards a new life in the sea.

Related articles

The post the smells and the sounds of a day welding in the mud appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> oh wait, we [divers] all need weight! https://oceanopportunity.com/oh-wait-divers-need-weight/ Mon, 06 Feb 2017 19:03:28 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=10296 Among my numerous hobby ventures has been fabricating weight harnesses for divers. Having produced a batch recently, the topic is fresh on my mind, so I figured I would share some of the ins and outs of the design and my own philosophies on correct weighting for divers. For starters, we all need to wear…

The post oh wait, we [divers] all need weight! appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> Among my numerous hobby ventures has been fabricating weight harnesses for divers. Having produced a batch recently, the topic is fresh on my mind, so I figured I would share some of the ins and outs of the design and my own philosophies on correct weighting for divers.

For starters, we all need to wear weight to aid in our being properly ballasted for any given dive. Short of wearing nothing but a bathing suit in the tropics and probably avoiding the need for any substantial weight, each and every diver requires at least some adjustment to help us break the surface. From day 1, we learn about ideal trim and buoyancy, and that a conscientious diver should aim to be neutral in the water. This is the perfect case for learning, but in practice it is not always ideal. For a working diver in particular, it may be advantageous to be negative or hard on th bottom, or it may be equally necessary to be slightly positive if working beneath structure.

At some point, many moons ago I realized that hiking a weight belt up high on my hips and then having all that lead rest on my kidneys for an hour at a time was less than comfortable. So, I worked a set of suspenders into the mix. This allowed me to wear the weights lower on my hips, which reduced the discomfort, and I quickly realized that this lower center of gravity was highly beneficial for working on the bottom while crouched over. The challenge with the suspenders was still allowing for ease of ditching in an emergency. So, I then added buckles on the shoulders that, when released, would allow the harness to slide up and over my shoulders, and the belt could be slid away safely.

As I spent more and more time hard hat diving for construction, there ended up being numerous instances where the weight harness would need to be ditched mid-dive from underneath my bailout harness – for instance if I were working on the bottom and needed to be heavy, then switched tasks and needed to be light to work up high on pilings or trusses without being dragged to the bottom. Out of necessity, I adjusted shoulder buckle placement several times until they were not inhibited by the bailout harness, and were easy to access.

It then dawned on me that the belt portion – being overladen with lead blocks – would tend to twist and become a confusing mess topside when trying to suit up, so I added a 4″ wide chassis and while at it, 4 low positioned d-rings for tools. The chassis doubled to reduce chaffing on my suits, and generally provided a nice central piece of material to expand on this harness design down the road. In the early days, this chassis was made from recycled firehose. I produced about 5 dozen belts with this firehose chassis design and in a variety of configurations – stitched, riveted, and bolted.

With a little momentum, I then teamed up with Manta Industries to have these more cleanly ‘produced’ which has resulted in a finished but highly functional look, and broader prospects for sales. There are another 2 dozen of this design out there, with the latest run available on my eBay store:

So, I get a lot of questions about weight harnesses. Mostly centered around how much these hold, and are the weights ditchable. To the latter, yes, you can ditch the whole harness very easily, and I have worked this into all of my diving configurations – for commercial work, hookah, technical diving, and more recently have integrated it into my sidemount setup. To the former, the harness can hold in excess of 50 pounds if needed, but I make a habit of keeping three belts in my truck at all times:

  1. an everyday belt with about 26 pounds. This is my ‘heavy’ belt when diving hotwater, my neutral belt with a wetsuit, and my light belt with a drysuit.
  2. a heavy belt with about 36 pounds. This is my heavy belt with a wetsuit, and a neutral belt with my drysuit.
  3. a light belt with 10 pounds. This is my light belt for a wetsuit.

If I’m in the heat of the moment and need a little extra, I also keep two 5 pound drop weight around which I can clip off as needed.

In any case, as I’ve observed new working divers wrestle with weight belts, sometimes even losing them mid dive, the justification for a harness just keeps presenting itself. It provides a secure means to hold the weight belt without accidental loss, can be worn low to encourage a more efficient working position, and if configured properly can still be ditched in an emergency.

There is nothing more embarrassing than jumping in for the big hero dive with the client on site, only to be too light, or too heavy. My advice to all – revisit those scuba 101 tips on proper weighting, spend the time to get it right, and keep track of adjustments required for any changes in equipment, tools and tasks, or diving environments. Like anything, it all comes with time in the water so get out there and put in your time!

The post oh wait, we [divers] all need weight! appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> New Paper – A Little Fish with a Big Name, in NMEA https://oceanopportunity.com/new-paper-little-fish-big-name-nmea/ Tue, 03 Jan 2017 01:18:24 +0000 https://oceanopportunity.com/?p=10249 2016 was a big year for new publications, as we we’ve taken some time over the last couple of years to write-up the significant body of work that has been evolving. I’m pleased to share another paper, courtesy our collaboration with Anne Krauss from Cobbles Elementary School in Penfield, NY: Paper-NMEACurrent_Derilissus2016 Anne’s students at Cobbles…

The post New Paper – A Little Fish with a Big Name, in NMEA appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]> 2016 was a big year for new publications, as we we’ve taken some time over the last couple of years to write-up the significant body of work that has been evolving. I’m pleased to share another paper, courtesy our collaboration with Anne Krauss from Cobbles Elementary School in Penfield, NY:

Paper-NMEACurrent_Derilissus2016

Anne’s students at Cobbles have very generously embraced our fieldwork as the theme for various literacy studies. The new paper in National Marine Educators Association (NMEA) Current provides a case study of our 2011 discovery of the mesophotic clingfish, Derilissus lombardii, and its interpretation and utility for course instruction at Cobbles Elementary. The paper is structured to provide a resource guide for any educator wishing to incorporate this discovery into their classrooms.

For more about D. lombardii, visit: a Little Fish with a Big Name

Derilissus lombardii, a new mesophotic clingfish discovered ion a Bahamian deep reef in just 7 minutes of bottom time. Described by Sparks & Gruber 2012. Photo by M. Lombardi 2011.

There’s a few key points to understand regarding the context of the paper. First, in the grand scheme of things, this little fish itself was rather insignificant. However, the fact that the specimen was discovered in such a short amount of time (7 minutes) should resonate – there is so very much work to do out there! Second, this mesophotic, or middle-light (200-500 feet), zone remains incredibly difficult to examine in any quantifiable way…there remain very real limits in diving technology and techniques, and these few minutes need to become hours, and days, to make progress. Lastly, somewhat embarrassingly though just a faulty system hard at work, it took more than five years from making the discovery, to afford its reach to students and educators around the country. Of course, there are lots of great scientific work being done out there, but creating a bridge to bring ‘what’s hot’ into classrooms in near real-time needs to be created so that the news isn’t old news.

Much, much work to be done, and so we trek forward into 2017…please consider making a donation to Ocean Opportunity Inc. to allow similar discoveries to be shared in classroom around the world.

Note: The D. lombardii discovery was made possible with support from National Geogaphic Society/Waitt Grants Program award W140-10 to ML, and additional funding from Ocean Opportunity Inc. Project collaborators included individuals from the University of Connecticut, the City University of New York, and the American Museum of Natural History.

Related articles

The post New Paper – A Little Fish with a Big Name, in NMEA appeared first on Oceans of Opportunity.

]]>