The post Deep-Sea Mining with John Oliver first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The post Norway Moves to Mine Deep Sea first appeared on Deep Sea News.

A four-leaf clover represents just one kind of rareness. One might find a 4-leaf clover just about anywhere. Four-leaf clovers are not just restricted to Ireland. Four-leaf clovers are rare because at any given locality they occur in very minuscule numbers.

The idea of whether rareness imparts values has tormented philosophers, including Nietzsche. “Whatever can be common always has little value. In the end it must be as it is and always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses for the profound, nuances and shudders for the refined, and, in brief, all that is rare for the rare.” But of course, Nietzsche does not define rare. What does “all that is rare for the rare even mean?” Freakin’ Nietzsche.

We all feel we know what rare means. But contrast the case of four-leaf clovers with platinum. Platinum is special for me. For my 10th wedding anniversary, I had a custom wedding ring made of platinum for my wife. This platinum band was to replace one from our youth when I had more limited income and could afford a metal less “precious” and less “rare.” Yet, platinum represents another kind rarity, occurring in great abundance but only at a few locations. Locally abundant but geographically restricted.

In a classic 1981 paper, Dr. Deborah Rabinowitz, a professor at the University of Michigan, laid out the seven forms of rarity. What makes something rare depends on three characteristics; geographic range, habitat specificity, and local population size. First, is a species found globally or only at a single location? Two, is species seen at any given site in low numbers? Third, is the species only found in a specific type of habitat?

As Rabinowitz notes in elegant writing., “If each of these attributes is dichotomized, a 2 x 2 x 2 or eight-celled block emerges. Although creating the hazard of false reification – that is, converting an idea into an object – such a simple scheme can aid in focusing our thoughts, and this is my intention. The patina – a gloss or incrustation conferred by age – of monolithic rarity may have hindered our understanding of an exceedingly heterogeneous assemblage of organisms. Since the products of rarity are diverse, the causes of rarity and the genetic and population consequences of rarity are undoubtedly equally multiple.”

But obviously, 2x2x2 does not equal 7. One state is lost, a species found everywhere, in high numbers, and several different kinds of habitats. This species isn’t rare at all! You can think of the seven forms of rarity as three singe type cases (geographically limited/small numbers/habitat specialist), the three double type cases (geographically limited and small numbers/geographically limited and habitat specialist/small numbers and habitat specialist), and the last triple case (geographically limited and small numbers and habitat specialist).

The most uncommon form of rarity is a species found all over but in limited numbers at a single location. One such species is the exceptionally beautiful deep-sea snail Oocorys sulcata found in the eastern and western corridors fo the Atlantic and reaching will into the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific. Oocorys sulcata also show incredible depth tolerance found all the way from the shelf at 150 meters down to the deepest abyss over 5000 meters. Yet, despite this fantastic distribution, it is rarely found. A famous sampling effort off of New England did not capture a single individual in 41 samples. Another 24 samples later as part of later effort only yielded a single specimen. Indeed, based on some very rough calculations, you would probably only find about 15 every square kilometer or roughly 45 Manhattan city blocks.

Hydrothermal vents possess mollusks that are both unique and fascinating. A snail first described in 2003, the unusual snail Chrysomallon squamiferum, maybe the most exciting find thus far at a hydrothermal vent. I admit my bias here, as most of my interest lies with studying deep-sea snails. Nonetheless, the discovery of “gold-footed” snails a the Kairei vent field in the Indian Ocean is fascinating.

At this point, I should state that the foot of the snail is mineralized with pyrite and greigite. Many of you might note the misnomer here, as pyrite is only ‘Fool’s Gold,’ but in deciding on a temporary ordinary name Fool’s Gold-Footed Snail seemed a bit lengthy. I hope all will forgive the intentional misnomer for the sake of creative writing. Although other names due include the big-hearted iron snail (it also possesses an abnormally large heart for its size). And of course the scaly foot snail. So maybe the big-hearted, iron gold, scaly foot snail.

The scales, or sclerites, that cover the entire length of the snail’s foot can be up to 8mm long. The presence of mineralized scales is remarkable in itself, but the existence of iron sulfide as skeletal material is unknown from any other animal. The purity of sulfides, among other lines of evidence, suggest that the building of the scales is controlled by the gastropod itself. The sclerites are thought to have evolved recently and homologous to the operculum. It is believed they may serve as a defense against cone shells also occurring at the vent.

Chrysomallon squamiferum is rare, not only for the oddity of its features amongst the animal kingdom but because the snail is known from only three hydrothermal vents in the Indian Ocean. While abundant at any of these vents it is geographically restricted, like platinum. The scaly foot is actually a “double rare” case both geographically restricted and a habitat specialist. Given this potential habitat of only a few square meters, some of which endangered by deep mining interests, led a new paper by Dr. Sigwart and colleagues establishing Chrysomallon squamiferum as endangered on the IUCN RedList. This listing places the big-hearted, iron gold, scaly foot snail with 25 species all either bony fish, cartilaginous fish, or cephalopods all assessed to be either endangered or critically endangered.

Helen Macdonald writes in H is for Hawk “The rarer they get, the fewer meanings animals can have. Eventually rarity is all they are made of. The condor is an icon of extinction. There’s little else to it now but being the last of its kind. And in this lies the diminution of the world. How can you love something, how can you fight to protect it, if all it means is loss?”

I am hoping for future where Chrysomallon squamiferum I remember this elegant mollusk for the rarity of beauty, adaptation, and morphological marvel not the rarity of its existence.

Sigwart, J. D., Chen, C., Thomas, E. A., Allcock, A. L., Böhm, M., & Seddon, M. (2019). Red Listing can protect deep-sea biodiversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1.

Rex, M.A., Stuart, C.T., Etter, R.J., & McClain, C.R. (2010). Biogeography of the deep-sea gastropod Oocorys sulcata Fischer 1884. Journal of Conchology, 40, 287.

Rabinowitz, Deborah. (1986). Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the British Isles. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity 

Rabinowitz, Deborah. (1981) Seven forms of rarity. Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation

The post The Beauty of Rarity first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Ocean science and conservation, like any human enterprise, is subject to its fair share of internal messiness from time to time.  As someone whose expertise and experience intersects several discrete domains (coral reefs, sharks, marine protected areas, and policy), I’ve witnessed plenty of dust-ups, arguments, and spats over the years.  And this week’s flurry of discussion instigated by a New York Times editorial on ocean protected areas is just the latest kerfuffle. In his op-ed, Bigger Is Not Better for Conservation, coral reef scientist and California Academy of Sciences curator, Dr Luiz Rocha, argues that large-scale, remote marine reserves are a disservice to ocean conservation.  It’s Dr Rocha’s perspectives, however, that seem more damaging.

Rocha’s argument hinges on four key points:

1. The current tally of big, remote marine reserves is in low-conflict, easy to protect (ie, low-hanging fruit) areas of the ocean where human reliance upon them is negligible and therefore government willingness to protect is strong;
2. There’s nothing worth protecting in these big, remote areas;
3. More important, smaller, near-shore ocean areas with high levels of human use are in dire need of protection;
4. Marine protected areas should be science-based (eg, protected zones should be guided by “sustainable catch limits” of commercially targeted species).

Let’s go one-by-one to see if any of these points hold water. [Note: For the sake of brevity, I’ll be using the acronym MPA frequently in this piece for “marine protected area,” but it will also serve as shorthand for “marine reserve,” “protected area,” “locally managed marine area,” or “marine managed area.”  I recognize that an MPA may not be managed or enforced, but let’s forego that technicality for the moment.]

POINT 1: “Big MPAs are easy and less consequential.”
As of today, there are approximately 20 large-scale protected areas across the ocean (ranging from tens-of-thousands to millions of square kilometers in protected area).  This includes a range from the Marianas Marine National Monument’s 16,400 square kilometers to the 1.15 million square kilometers of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawai’i.  These MPAs may consist of fully-protected, no-take (no fishing/extraction) designation to protection that still allows multiple uses.  According to the folks at MPA Atlas, there are approximately 15,000 small, coastal MPAs around the world.  Some of these, like Cordelia Banks off the island of Roatan in the Bay of Honduras, encompass only 17 square kilometers.  Many are even smaller.  Totaling all of the massive/remote and small/near-shore MPAs together gets us to approximately 2% of the ocean under some form of protection.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress, held in Hawai’i in September 2016, called for member nations to set aside “30% of each marine habitat” in “highly protected MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures” by 2030, with the ultimate aim being ”a fully sustainable ocean, at least 30% of which has no extractive activities.”

For rhetorical effect, I’ll reiterate that as of March 23, 2018, only 2% of our global oceans is protected, and 2030 is only twelve years away.

As someone in the MPA biz, I can testify that there are at present a small handful of big, deep-pocketed, international NGOs working on big international MPAs: The Pew Charitable Trusts, Conservation International, Oceana, and National Geographic. These folks have the gravitas, influence, and resources to capture heads of state attention and convene forums necessary to get things done.  You can bitch all you want about the pros and cons, but this is the reality.  Alongside the big NGOs, there are tens-to-hundreds of small to medium-sized NGOs that are working simultaneously on everything from big/remote MPAs to smaller/near-shore MPAs.  Sometimes the big NGOs work in concert with the smaller ones.  Sometime not.  It’s all site dependent.

Having worked on everything from massive MPAs to tiny MPAs over my career, I can say that none of them were “easy wins.”  So-called “low hanging fruit” may represent a unique opportunity in time.  You may have a receptive government or local community that welcomes the process.  It’s always easier to work with the willing than the resistant.  But every MPA effort in which I’ve participated involved strategy, identifying champions, public consultations, negotiations, community organizing, building political will, battling nefarious characters, rebooting strategy, sweating-out votes, and of course finding funds to support all of this.  If there are “easy wins” out there, big or small, I sure would appreciate someone pointing me in that direction.

Protecting big/remote areas or smaller/near-shore areas is not an either/or game.  This is not a binary proposition of doing one or the other.  It’s a yes/also.  We need to protect small, not so small, medium, larger, big, bigger, and massive tracts of the ocean.  We need to protect what is easy to protect, and what is harder to protect.  We must gather every bit of low-hanging fruit, and plan to reach the currently out-of-reach fruit.  MPAs occupy a spectrum or continuum, and we need to be prepared to work with everything along that spectrum.  Some NGOs will have a mandate (and talent) for pursuing big swaths of ocean.  Others are more tuned to work on local needs.  But there is a lot of real estate between the biggest and smallest MPAs for organizations, individuals, and yes, even FUNDERS to find their niche.

POINT 2: “There’s nothing worth protecting.”
This is just wholesale wrong.  What is Rocha considering as “worth” protection?  Certainly, there are species whose entire life cycle may be captured by the boundaries of an MPA.  Other species may only spend a portion of their lives within the boundaries of protection.  Protected areas are designed to factor in these variables.  But not all MPAs are envisioned around biological significance alone.  The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary in North Carolina, the very first marine national monument designated by the United States in 1975, honors the historic significance of the shipwreck of the famed Civil War ironclad, USS Monitor.  Similarly, the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument and the entire Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, including the 110 seamounts, open waters, and all life in that area are considered biocultural resources and linked to the Hawaiian people through environmental kinship.

The ocean as a cultural seascape is vital to Hawaiian identity, their being, and essential dimension to their cognitive understanding of the world.  The ocean waters in Papahānaumokuākea were an ancient pathway for a voyaging sphere that occurred between this region and the main Hawaiian islands for over 400-500 years (ca. AD 1300-1800).  The practice of traditional wayfinding and voyaging—recently popularized in the film Moana and which is one of the most unique living traditions of the world—requires protection of the entire marine environment and open waters, not just the islands and reefs, because it relies on biological signs and natural phenomenon, such as winds, waves, currents, and the presence of marine life and birds at key moments and locations.

At the same time as Papahānaumokuākea was successfully expanded in 2016 by President Obama, the State of Hawai’i also supporting the establishment of small, coastal community-managed makai areas, driven by and for the community.  Yes, both can happen at the same time and using the same human capital, as many of the same people fought for both the small makai areas and the big Papahānaumokuākea effort.

POINT 3: “There are more important, smaller places to protect.”
Importance is relative and subjective.  It is place-driven and context-heavy.  What is important to someone in Brazil, might be less so to someone in Hawai’i.  So instead of casting stones at our neighbors, perhaps we should recognize that there are seriously limited resources, conservation bandwidth, and political will, and try to triage our priorities.  I recognize that the reality is that not all NGOs/organizations like to play-well together.  Furthermore, some places and approaches are simply not tenable due to practical considerations and political and social realities.  Again, this is a reality of modern conservation.  But as I mention above, effective MPAs do not occupy one half of a binary state.  It’s not either small or large.  Remote or near-shore.  Fully managed/enforced or paper parks/un-enforced.  Every single MPA in existence occupies a position somewhere along a continuum of effectiveness.  Even an un-managed, unfunded, and unenforced MPA is a work in progress along that continuum.

POINT 4: “They’re not science-based.”
Science should help inform MPA zoning and designation.  No questions or arguments here.  But the science needed may at times be incomplete or lacking.  Many decisions around the world, particularly in developing nations, on “sustainable catch limits” are not acted upon because data is deficient.  Should we be expected to wait for the science to be decided and settled (whatever that might mean) before action/conservation measures can be activated?  And science is but one arrow in our quiver that we should use to scope, establish, and manage MPAs.  The social sciences and economics are also driving MPA priorities and planning.

Finally…
I find an editorial like Rocha’s to be, quite frankly, dangerous.  Staking-out a claim on one side of a false dichotomy or constructing straw man arguments is the purview of graduate school.  I get it… Rocha would like to see more love shown to near shore/coral reef areas (including where he has worked in Brazil).  But what is the benefit to conservation as a whole to publish these half-baked propositions that large, remote MPAs are a waste of time in the pages of The New York Times and under the banner of an august and internationally recognized organization like the California Academy of Sciences?  We are not currently living in normal times, and this sort of rhetoric plays right into the hands of those keen to see less ocean protection, not more.

For the first time in US history, an administration is rolling back protections on national monuments, both land and sea.  Australia just this week has announced the possibility of cutting in half the protections for the Coral Seas MPA.  Conservation in one place in the ocean is not the enemy of conservation in another place.  And MPAs are not a binary switch of either big or small…  Local or remote…  Fully protected or not.  If we are going to get to the IUCN recommended target of 30% of our oceans under strong protection by 2030, we need to ramp up protections everywhere along the MPA continuum.  Yes/Also should become our mantra!  We must embrace a process of continuous improvement in our MPA work, not display a reflex of undercutting other conservation efforts.  And we need to keep our focus and attention on the real threats to a healthy ocean: over-fishing, illegal fishing, pollution, climate change, and lack of political will for action.

The post Embracing Yes/Also: Marine Protected Areas Are Not An Either/Or Proposition first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The Bakken Sea was unlike any ecosystem that exists today. Now, instead of the dry plains of North Dakota, imagine floating on the surface of this sea about 380 million years ago. The evening air is moist and musty, the sinking sun is dipping low, the sunset a wash of muted colors gleaming off crumpled black waves. Algae near the surface collect the last rays of sunlight, combining light with water and carbon dioxide to make organic matter. A strange collection of prehistoric animals feed on these algae (and each other) here at the sea’s surface, but to truly understand the Bakken, we must go underneath.

Standing underwater, on the Bakken seabed, there is no visible life. There is almost no oxygen in the water around you, transforming the seabed into a “dead zone.” You are at the bottom of a large basin—a bowl in the ocean floor nearly 400 miles wide . As the struggles of life play out in the waters above, the old, sick and defeated sink to their graves on the seabed. But without oxygen, they do not fully decompose, and nothing ventures this deep to scavenge upon their carcasses. Instead, billions upon billions of bodies–mostly algae but some larger creatures, too–slowly amass on the seafloor, forming a layer of organic matter known as the ‘lower Bakken.’

Fast forward through geologic time several million of years into the future: the sea level rapidly drops, and the basin becomes shallow with quick-moving currents. Sediment tumbles in from the surrounding mountain ranges. A layer of sandy, porous rock that covers and buries the layer of bodies. This sandy layer is knows as the ‘middle Bakken.’ Fast forward one more time: the sea rises again, and the first stage repeats, blanketing the seabed once more in dead remains, this is the ‘upper Bakken.’

These three layers—the lower, middle and upper Bakken—are then covered by sand and rock, compressed, and heated in a perfect combination of conditions that geologists refer to as an ‘Oil Kitchen.’ Slowly, this kitchen converts the Bakken carcasses into a diverse collection of gases and complex molecules called hydrocarbons–the fossils that make our fuel [2].

The lower and upper Bakken layers are sludgy and dense, difficult to drill into. But as the remains in these layers liquify, their old resting places crack open under the extreme weight and pressure . The bodies of these ancient dead sea creatures, long immobilized in their graves, now move again: the liquids of the lower and upper Bakken layers seep into the spongy middle Bakken layer. It is from this middle layer that, millions of years later, that they will be exhumed.

To harvest fossil fuels from the Bakken reserve, we drill wells thousands of feet down into the middle layer, and then extend them an additional two miles horizontally, maximizing the amount of oil we can harvest (Continental Resources, PDF). A high pressure mix of sand and water, called ‘proppant,’ is pumped in, fracturing the rock and opening small pockets of oil, which ooze through the cracks and are captured in the well.

Before the beginning of this month, this ‘crude oil’ was pumped into trucks or trains, destined for refineries. But as of June 1st, it instead enters the Dakota Access Pipeline–traversing multiple states, eventually destined for national or international refineries. At refineries, the ancient ocean remains of the Bakken Sea will be processed into the oil in your car, gas in your tank, and plastic lid on your morning coffee cup. Transporting oil via pipeline will potentially reduce the risks and costs associated with overland transport. But the 1,172  miles of pipeline raise a suite of new humanitarian and environmental concerns, including possible spills at important water sources like Lake Oahe, and destruction of sacred sites associated with the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Protesters tried to stop the pipe’s construction, or have it move it to a new location. Just today, a federal judge ruled that proper environmental procedures were not followed before the pipeline was approved. But for now at least, this long stretch of pipe will be the primary way these remains march across the plains.

Back in in Williston, North Dakota, business is booming; this small community is undergoing an oil-fueled renaissance. After one last look around at the dry grassy expanse, you get back in your car, turn the key–the gas ignites, the combustion moves the oily gears, and drive away.

Additional information

[1] Depositional Facies And Petrophysical Analysis Of The Bakken Formation, Parshall Field, Mountrail County, North Dakota (http://geology.mines.edu/Bakken/NETL_DOE/DOE-Student_theses/Andrea_Simenson_THESIS.pdf)

[2] http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/o/oil_kitchen.aspx

The post The Ancient Ocean of the Dakota Access Pipeline first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The EPA:

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

Scott Pruitt’s first address to the EPA employees (paraphrased):

Let’s all be civil and compromise. I learned about it in a book about the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton said let’s reduce state debt. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said, sure…but only if we completely develop this tidal plain in Virginia and call it Washington D.C.

Dear humans of the US, I’d like to hold your hand, stare deeply into your eyes and tell you it’s going to be alright. Sure, it all sounds reasonable. Businesses and government working together to get what they want. But in light of Pruitt’s history of suing the EPA, ties to the fossil fuel industry and complete non-mention of climate in this speech, I just can’t. I really can’t.

Was his use of this environmental anecdote was intentional or not? I can’t say. But what I can say is that Scott Pruitt will definitely be doing as he always has done, putting the interests of business and money ahead of human health and the environment. It’s going to be a long 4 years, so don’t stop paying attention and don’t stop speaking out. We won’t.

The post Scott Pruitt and the EPA: One of these statements is not like the other first appeared on Deep Sea News.

I am on a ship 950 miles away from the nearest landmass. Here, in the middle of the equatorial Pacific Ocean, our team sends a remotely-operated vehicle 2.5 miles down to the flat abyssal plain. As deep-sea biologists, we get to see some pretty AH-MAZING sights and this time is no exception: an anemone-like animal with 8-foot tentacles that billow across the seafloor. This creature, Relicanthus sp., is so different from other anemones it was recently moved to a new order.

As incredible as seeing this tentacled beast was, I couldn’t help but feel a tinge of sadness. It’s difficult for a marine biologist working in an area that may be forever changed within the next two decades. As the demand for metals increases, humans are seeking resources in ever more remote places and the next frontier of mining will likely take place in the deep ocean.

So what are countries after 3 miles deep in the central Pacific Ocean? Potato-sized lumps of metallic ore laden with cobalt, copper, nickel and other rare metals known as polymetallic nodules. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone has the most valuable beds of these nodules that sit like cobbles on a street and form at a rate of a few millimeters per million years. As the Clarion-Clipperton Zone is in international waters, it falls under the mandate of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). So far, there have been 15 mining exploration areas allocated, each up to 75,000 km² or roughly the size of Panama.

Let’s be honest, nodule mining is going to do some damage. Nodules will be removed resulting in local extinctions of the many animals (corals, sponges, bryozoans, polychaetes, nematodes etc.) that call these nodules home and leaving no possibility for their re-establishment in the future. Machines, similar to combine harvesters, will disturb and compact large swathes of sediment, kicking up sediment plumes, which will travel for kilometers before depositing elsewhere. Further entombment of the seafloor will occur when tailings are discharged into the water column. Not to mention other possible impacts that include light and noise pollution from machinery, and major changes to the geochemistry of the sediment, food webs and carbon sequestration pathways. The cumulative impacts of these operations aren’t yet understood but will likely be long-standing and ocean-wide.

Despite this looming threat, the Clarion-Clipperton Zone is critically underexplored. We know little of what species live there. It is mandatory that contractors undertake baseline studies of the biology living at the seafloor before EIAs and mining can begin. The ABYSSLINE Project, which I work on, is doing just that in the easternmost claim area leased to UK Seabed Resources Ltd (UKSRL). My research is trying to find out what megafauna (the awesome charismatic animals over 2 cm in size) live in the UKSRL claim, how abundant and diverse they are, and what ranges they occupy, not only within the claim but also across the entire Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Over the last two years, ABYSSLINE scientists have spent over two months out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean sampling the seafloor with a menagerie of oceanographic equipment (plankton pumps, fish traps, a remotely-operated vehicle, an autonomous underwater vehicles, sleds, corers etc.).

Preliminary results show that the UKSRL claim area is rich not only in metals but also in life. The seabed, at a first glance, appeared to not have much living there. Taking a closer look, we realized that there were small animals everywhere: tiny white corals, pink and purple sea cucumbers, bright red shrimp and strange unicellular animals that create sedimented homes the size of your fist. On our first expedition, we sampled an area the size of Hong Kong (30 x 30 km) and found 170 tentative species of megafauna and that’s likely an underestimate! These levels of biodiversity are the highest in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone and are comparable to many other abyssal regions worldwide. We also collected 12 megafauna species and half of those were new to science, including some of the most commonly seen, reiterating how little we know of the abyssal life in this region.

The post Megafauna and Minerals on the Pacific Abyss first appeared on Deep Sea News.

2. One Fish. Two Fish. Red Fish… No Fish.

3. Snow Caps Cones for Everyone.

4. Too Many Lionfish on the Dance Floor.

5. I See Deadzones.

6. No Escape from Plastic Monstas.

7. Where Have All the Coral Reefs Gone and Where are all the Cod?

8. Goodness Gracious, Great Plumes of Oil…and Mercury…and all that other crap we put in the sea.

9. I’m all alone and there’s no zooxanthellae inside me.

10. Fin.

The post 10 Reasons Why the Ocean’s Struggle is Real first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Yo Bitch, let’s talk about cold seeps!

10. Blue Ice

You don’t need to track down Walter and Jesse to get your hands on some sweet blue ice. You can find Crystal Meth(ane) at the bottom of the ocean: high pressure and cold temperatures lead to the formation of gas deposits known as Methane Hydrates, where “molecules of natural gas are trapped in an ice-like case of water molecules”. These deposits look a little something like this:

Instead of scattered chunks you can also find HUGE blocks of Crystal Meth(ane). This is the largest one ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico, measuring in at a whopping 6 metres wide x 2 metres high x 1.5 meters deep!

9. Crack dens

I’m talking about the fissures in the seafloor – cold seeps are literal crack dens. Where do you think all that Meth(ane) comes from? It slowly seeps out of the seafloor!

Cold seeps occur over fissures on the seafloor caused by tectonic activity. Oil and methane “seep” out of those fissures, get diffused by sediment, and emerge over an area several hundred meters wide. Methane is the main component of what we commonly refer to as natural gas. But in addition to being an important energy source for humans, methane also forms the basis of a cold seep ecosystem. (NOAA Ocean Explorer)

This crab is a total junkie, so don’t mess with him – and definitely don’t laugh when he gets Meth(ane) all over his face!

 8. The symbiosis cartel

No one is running Lamellibrachia out of town. This chemosynthetic genus of tube worms dominates the habitat surrounding deep-sea Crystal Meth(ane). And this worm cartel has called the shots for a loooong time –  Lamellibrachia worms can grow up to 3 metres (10ft) tall, and live for 250 years!!

[Lamellibrachia] is entirely reliant on internal, sulfide-oxidizing bacterial symbionts for its nutrition. L. luymesi provides the bacteria with hydrogen sulfide and oxygen by taking them up from the environment and binding them to a specialized hemoglobin molecule. Unlike the tube worms that live at hydrothermal vents, Lamellibrachia uses a posterior extension of its body called the root to take up hydrogen sulfide from the seep sediments. Lamellibrachia may also help fuel the generation of sulfide by excreting sulfate through their roots into the sediments below the aggregations. (Wikipedia).

7. Magnets

Deepwater methane seeps are magnets for research – they definitely bring the dolla$. A quick search on the National Science Foundation website shows a total of 201 projects, and 34 currently active research grants focused on “seeps”. And its no wonder, because Crystal Meth(ane) is associated with a whole lotta different, specific habitats: oil/gas seeps, methane seeps, gas hydrate seeps, brine seeps, brine pools, pockmarks and mud volcanoes. There’s a lot to study!

6. Hesiocaeca methanicola is the one who knocks

That’s right bitches, I’m talking about Meth(ane) ice worms. Hesiocaeca methanicola polychaete worms. That live on Crystal Meth(ane) and feed on specialized bacteria that live on the methane hydrate. I’ll bet you $20,000 that this is the most badass thing you’ve learned all day.

5. Beggiatoa, Bitch!

Beggiatoa is a genus of filamentous bacteria that form colorful, fuzzy mats around cold seeps. Mats can be white, yellow, or orange, and the mat colors usually correspond to environmental conditions (such as temperature gradients). The colors also correspond to different species of Beggiatoa bacteria – these species are constantly competing with each other, vying for space on the seafloor and access to nutrients.

4. Um…AOM!

AOM = Anaerobic oxidation of methane. This is a totally important microbial process that prevents all the Crystal Meth(ane) on the seafloor from rising up and being released into the atmosphere. But the process has stumped scientists for years! Even now we don’t have a complete understanding of the microbes involved, but in recent years we’ve made some significant progress (especially with genomic tools). Here’s a quick overview of this complicated topic:

Vast amounts of methane are stored under the ocean floor. Anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to sulfate respiration (AOM) prevents the release of this potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Although the process was discovered 35 years ago it has remained a long standing mystery as to how microorganisms perform this reaction. A decade ago, an important discovery was made which showed that two different microorganisms are often associated with AOM. It was proposed that these two microorganisms perform different parts of the AOM reaction. One, an archaeon, was supposed to oxidize methane and the other, a bacterium, was supposed to respire sulfate. This implied the existence of an intermediate compound to be shuttled from the methane oxidizer to the sulfate respirer. [But recent research has] turned this whole model on its head…the archaeon not only oxidizes methane but can also respire sulfate and does not necessarily need the bacterial partner. It appears that the archaeon does not employ the common enzyme toolbox that other known sulfate-respiring microorganisms use, but relies on a different, unknown pathway. (New article from the Max-Planck Institute)

3. Burn baby, burn!

OK, so there are a lot of explosions in Breaking Bad, but not so many in the deep-sea. However, another reason that Crystal Meth(ane) is awesome is because it BURNS. So #3 is just an excuse for me to put in some pictures of fire:

2. Time for a drink?

Marine Biology and Breaking Bad episodes usually involve a fair amount of drinking. Writing this Top 10 list has surprisingly involved no alcohol so far. But since I’m getting thirsty, I just wanted to remind everyone that Crystal Meth(ane) may have a connection to your drinking water. You might have heard of Methane Hydrates in the context of Fracking, a controversial mining technique often used to extract natural gas. Methane, is of course the main component of natural gas, and methane hydrates occur not only in the oceans but deep within terrestrial rocks and even in Arctic permafrost.

1. Its all about the chemistry

The chemistry of cold seeps is #1 because it would make Walter White proud. Cold seeps are all about chemistry – different compounds abound, organismal metabolisms adhere to a variety of pathways. Crystal Meth(ane) is defined by its chemical formula (CH4•5.75H2O), and AOM can be best described in equation terms: CH₄ + SO₄^2- → HCO_3- + HS^– + H₂O. Methane hydrates simultaneously represent one of the largest untapped fossil fuel sources on earth, and a potentially significant player in climate change. Understanding the chemistry of deepwater ecosystems will be vital knowledge in the decades to come.

The post Top 10 Reasons I Love Crystal Meth(ane) first appeared on Deep Sea News.

]]> https://deepseanews.com/2013/09/top-10-reasons-i-love-crystal-methane/feed/ 5 https://deepseanews.com/2013/07/thats-no-moon-thats-a-bulk-cutter/ https://deepseanews.com/2013/07/thats-no-moon-thats-a-bulk-cutter/#comments Mon, 08 Jul 2013 16:32:19 +0000 https://www.deepseanews.com/?p=20539 First watch the video above. Last week, I posted on Nautilus’s, that company that is going to delicately mine hydrothermal vents, bright new shiny 310 ton toy to…

The post That’s no moon, that’s a bulk cutter first appeared on Deep Sea News.

]]>
First watch the video above. Last week, I posted on Nautilus’s, that company that is going to delicately mine hydrothermal vents, bright new shiny 310 ton toy to pillage the deep.  The video above gives you a much better idea of both how insanely large the vehicle is but how it approximates the deep-sea mining version of the Death Star.

The post That’s no moon, that’s a bulk cutter first appeared on Deep Sea News.

]]> https://deepseanews.com/2013/07/thats-no-moon-thats-a-bulk-cutter/feed/ 2