extbio a4report v4 · a quarter century ago, in his groundbreaking book the end of nature,...

Extreme Biotech meets Extreme Energy 2

ETC Group...works to address the socioeconomicand ecological issues surrounding newtechnologies that could have an impacton the world’s poorest and mostvulnerable people. We investigateecological erosion (including the erosionof cultures and human rights); thedevelopment of new technologies(especially agricultural but also othertechnologies that work with genomicsand matter); and we monitor globalgovernance issues including corporateconcentration and trade in technologies.We operate at the global political level. We work closely with partner civilsociety organizations (CSOs) and socialmovements, especially in Africa, Asia and Latin America.www.etcgroup.org

Heinrich Böll StiftungFostering democracy and upholdinghuman rights, taking action to preventthe destruction of the global ecosystem,advancing equality between women andmen, securing peace through conflictprevention in crisis zones, and defendingthe freedom of individuals againstexcessive state and economic power –these are the objectives that drive theideas and actions of the Heinrich BöllFoundation. We maintain close ties tothe German Green Party (Alliance 90 /The Greens) and as a think tank forgreen visions and projects, we are part ofan international network encompassingwell over 100 partner projects inapproximately 60 countries.

The Heinrich Böll Foundation worksindependently and nurtures a spirit ofintellectual openness. We maintain aworldwide network with currently 32 international offices. We cooperateclosely with 16 state-level BöllFoundations in each of Germany’sfederal states, and we support talented,socio-politically engaged undergraduateand graduate students in Germany andabroad. We gladly follow Heinrich Böll’sexhortation for citizens to get involvedin politics, and we want to inspire othersto do the same.www.boell.de/en

Extreme Biotech Meets Extreme Energyis ETC communique #113.Original Research by ETC Group withthe financial support and collaborationof the Heinrich Böll Foundation.Copy-editing and proof-reading: Holly DresselDesign and artwork by Stig First Published November 2015.CC-BY-NC-ND – Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0

ETC Group & Heinrich Böll Stiftung 3

IssueThe extreme genetic engineering industry of Synthetic Biology(Syn Bio) is rapidly shrugging off earlier pretensions that itmight usher in a clean, green, post-petroleum future. Instead,many Syn Bio executives and start-ups are now trying to createalliances with fracking, oil and shale interests, which willactually increase the fossil–based extractive economy that hasalready brought planetary climate change and other ecologicaland social problems. New Syn Bio-enabled techniques of“gaseous fermentation” allow for natural gas to betransformed into fuels, chemicals, plastics andpossibly even proteins, adding even more value tothe gas coming from oilfields and frackfields andpotentially making economical the 40-60% ofglobal gas reserves currently lost or “stranded”(gas that is not currently economicallyrecoverable). At the same time, fossil producersare becoming intrigued by the possibility thatapplying engineered microbes to existing wells andcoal seams could enable them to access more of the 2to 4 trillion barrels of oil in existing oil fields, oil that hasbeen considered inaccessible. Pumping microbes into oilfields isa technological gamble that might expand global oil reserves by150% if it pays off, and it could also liberate more gas from coalreserves. As the extreme biotech industry and the extremeextraction industry move towards deeper collaboration,biosafety risks and climate risks emanating from both will startto become ever more entangled.

ActorsA rash of Syn Bio start-ups and more established biotech firmsmaking fuels and chemicals are switching their feedstocks (thematerial the engineered bacteria eat) from biomass to naturalgas; they have been encouraged and subsidised to do this by theUS Department of Energy. More established companies in this“dash to gas” include Calysta, Intrexon, Coskata and Lanzatech.A leading bioplastic company, Natureworks, is also switching toa Syn Bio/gas feedstock plan. Meanwhile, nascent oil companyinterest in pumping engineered organisms into extraction sitesappears to be led by BP and Du Pont, with smaller actors alsopioneering the field. They include Craig Venter’s SyntheticGenomics Inc., and California’s Taxon Biosciences. There is lessinterest so far in applying Synthetic Biology to mine for non-fossil minerals, but this is still under development, with SanFrancisco’s Universal Mining as the standout pre-commercialplayer.

ForaAt the nation-state level, the USGovernment’s Department of Energy isactively convening and funding researchwork on Synthetic Biology for the benefit ofthe extractive fossil industries. However, nointernational policy discussion has yet takenplace as to the implications of this shifttowards supporting fossil fuel extraction in

the SynBio Industry. In particular, thesocietal and ecological challenge of

new biotechnologies proppingup the aging fossil fuel industryhas not been discussed in thevital context of climatenegotiations. Despite this, inan on going process, the 194

parties to the UN Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD)

have passed several precautionaryinternational decisions urging proper

regulation and assessment. The topic ofSynthetic Biology returns to the CBD’sSBSTTA (scientific and technical body) inApril 2016.

PolicyMost urgently, a dialogue needs to getunderway between movements opposingfossil fuel extraction and expansion (e.g. anti-fracking or anti-pipeline), and those trackingdevelopments in biotech. Civil societyorganizations could recommend amoratorium on the environmental releaseand commercialisation of Synthetic Biologyapplications, which would includeapplications in the extractive industry sector.In climate negotiations, civil society andpolicymakers should be vigilant that neitherthe capture of stranded gas for Syn Biotransformation nor the use of MEHR(Microbially Enhanced HydrocarbonRecovery) are misleadingly promoted as aclimate solution, and moreover that the veryconsiderable climate and biodiversity risks ofthese techniques are very clear to all parties.

As the extremebiotech industry and the

extreme extraction industrymove towards deeper

collaboration, biosafety risks andclimate risks emanating from

both will start to becomeever more entangled.

These techniques have evolved with such speed and depthof intervention that there are as yet few methods (to say

nothing of regulatory bodies), with which to begin tosafely assess their impacts on the natural

genomes they will invade. Roboticisedgenetic engineering platforms now

enable Syn Bio companies to generatetens of thousands of novel species atone go, releasing these constructs,whose effects on the evolution ofEarth's lifeforms are completelyunknown. This amounts to

intervening in evolution itself at anunprecedented scale and speed.

And now, these two “end of nature”scenarios are becoming synergistic. As the

multibillion dollar Synthetic Biology industrysearches for viable products, new markets and new funding,a number of private companies and even some governmentsare seizing on the idea of using the extreme geneticengineering of Syn Bio to further extreme energy extractionin the fossil fuel economy. This is a potent and potentiallylethal synergy; it combines the biosafety risks of syntheticbiology with the climate risks of fossil fuel extraction.

The new alliance, unfortunately, makes excellenteconomic sense for the carbon majors,3 that is, the largecoal, gas and oil companies who have been most

responsible for human-made climate change. Thesehugely powerful and wealthy multinational

corporations must demonstrate to theirinvestors their ongoing viability bycontinually overcoming geographic andtechnological barriers. One alarming featureof the current era of extreme energy is the

increasing willingness of fossil companies totake on greater risks, including technological

risks, to assure investors that all that carbon willkeep on flowing. Turning to Synthetic Biology as a tool isconsistent with this increasingly risky behaviour.

This report is intended to provide a first assessment ofhow the extractive industries are exploring ways to harnesssynthetic biology and to help policy makers, civil societyand others act in a precautionary manner against the risksthis may bring.


IntroductionModified Climates and Modified Microbes - Two Bad Ideas Find Each OtherA quarter century ago, in his groundbreaking book TheEnd of Nature, ecological writer Bill McKibben pointed outthat humans were now interfering with nature in twofundamental ways.2 The prime subject of hisbook was that the burning of fossil fuels isaltering Earth’s atmosphere, creating anunnatural climatic state everywhereon the planet. The second “end ofnature” was that humans were forthe first time crossing naturalspecies barriers, intentionallyaltering the genetic code of livingorganisms through geneticengineering.

As the planet’s atmosphere, nowloaded with carbon dioxide to over 400parts per million, inexorably warms towards adangerous 2 degree centigrade average temperature rise,more and more civil society, climate scientists andgovernments are reaching the logical conclusion that only aserious phase-out and winding down of the globalextractive fossil fuel economy can safely ward off dangerousclimate change. Part of preventing fossil expansion meansstriking out any policies, proposals or technologies thatwould increase the extraction of fossil fuels, including new“extreme energy” approaches such as fracking, coal bedmethane recovery, deep water drilling, shale oil mining andenhanced oil recovery. Given the planet's currentwarming state, developing and deploying thesetechnologies, to intentionally increase the flowof fossil carbon from underground in orderto deposit even more in the atmosphere,borders on the insane.

Today, while the uncontrolled risks offurther fossil extraction are widely discussed,the technology to achieve McKibben's second“end of nature,” genetic engineering, has been farless in the spotlight, even though it too has been rapidlyaccelerating. The transgenic techniques that he worriedabout in 1989 have now been superseded by a much morepowerful platform of Synthetic Biology (Syn Bio) andextreme genetic engineering that permit laboratorytechnicians to quickly and flexibly edit and manufacture awide range of artificial genomes, using living organisms.

Turning toSynthetic Biology

is consistent with thefossil industry’s

increasingly riskybehaviour.

“Why then does it(genetic modification) soundso awful? Because of course it

represents the second end of nature.We have already, pretty much by

accident, altered the atmosphere so badlythat nature as we know it is over. Butthis won’t be by accident – this will be

on purpose.”

- Bill McKibben, The Endof Nature1


What is Synthetic Biology?

Synthetic biology, dubbed “genetic engineeringon steroids,”4 broadly refers to the use ofcomputer-assisted, biological engineeringto design and construct new syntheticbiological life-forms, living parts, devicesand systems that do not exist in nature.The term also refers to the intentionalredesign of existing biologicalorganisms using these sametechniques. Synthetic biologyattempts to bring a predictiveengineering approach to thegenetic engineering of biologicallife, using genetic “parts” that arethought to be well differentiated andwhich will have rationally predictedbehavior in their new organism. It worksalso by “editing” genetic codes as ifthey were identical to the printedcoded instructions used in, forexample, mechanicalengineering. While the fieldaims to makebioengineering predictable,it is still a very long wayfrom that ideal. In fact,many geneticists andmicrobiologists (and evensynthetic biologists in private)contend that this will likely neverbe possible. Biological lifeforms arehighly dependent on context andenvironmental influences for their function,health and behaviour. They are fundamentally not likemachines, which are far more separated from theirsurroundings, and many studies have demonstrated thatit is very difficult to reliably treat any organism as if itwere simple machinery.5

Originally more of an investment term than aclearly delineated field, the catch-all name

Synthetic Biology (or “Syn Bio”) is nowused to refer to a suite of second-

generation genetic engineering techniquesovertaking the classical genetic

engineering methods (also known astransgenics) that originally brought

genetically modified crops onto themarket. To date, the commercialapplications of the new SyntheticBiology have been in makingbiofuels and chemicals and in

engineering living microbes, such asyeast and algae, so they will excrete

synthetic versions of food, flavours,cosmetic and fragrance ingredients. This

has included artificially producingvanilla flavour, sweeteners and

essential oils such as patchouliand rose oil.6

Regulators are struggling toadjust to this new set ofgenetic techniques and tolearn how to assess andcontrol the proliferating

number of products flowingfrom them. The term

“Synthetic Biology” is nowbecoming formally defined in the

European Union and at a UnitedNations level at the UN Convention On

Biological Diversity.7 In this report, we use thisterm (or its shortened form, Syn Bio) to describebiotechnology techniques now being applied that go wellbeyond classical genetic engineering, and we use itparticularly when it is microorganisms that are beingmanipulated and deployed.

1 Bill Mckibben, The End of Nature, Random House 19892 Ibid.3 See: www.carbonmajors.org4 www.techcentral.co.za/synthetic-biology-genetic-engineering-

on-steroids/30351/

5 Craig Holdredge, “When engineers take hold of life.” InContext, The Nature Institute,www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic32/synbio.pdf

6 See: www.etcgroup.org/tags/synbio-case-studies7 Current CBD process to define Synthetic Biology are archived

here: https://bch.cbd.int/synbio

SomeDefinitions of

Synthetic Biology:

“Synthetic Biology is afurther development and new

dimension of modern biotechnologythat combines science, technology and

engineering to facilitate and accelerate theunderstanding, design, redesign, manufacture

and/or modification of genetic materials, livingorganisms and biological systems”

- Operational Definition developed by the AdHoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic

Biology of the UN Convention OnBiological Diversity. Montreal,

September 2015

“The overall aim of synthetic biology is to simplify biologicalengineering by applying

engineering principles and designs — which emanate from electronic andcomputer engineering — to biology.”

– Synthetic Biologists Jay Keasling and Chris Paddon,

May 2014


Fickle Rhetoric: From Replacing the Petrochemical Industry to Servicing It

There was a time when those pioneering the field ofSynthetic Biology presented themselves as opponents andchallengers to the extractive fossil industries, and claimedthey were part of the solution to the climate crisis. In 2008,before a power audience of tech CEOs and politicians,controversial genome entrepreneur J. Craig Venter claimedthat, “We have modest goals of replacing the wholepetrochemical industry and becoming a majorsource of energy,”8 by which he meant theywould be producing biological fuels fromsugar, cellulose and algae transformedby synthetically engineered microbes.In the same year Venter told theBBC that, “the most importantissues facing humanity right now isthat we’re taking billions andbillions of gallons of oil andbillions of tons of coal out of theground and burning it and puttingall that carbon in our atmosphere.And if the population doesn’t wakeup to the dangers of doing that and ifwe don’t quickly come up with areplacements, we’re going to have veryserious consequences, not hypotheticalones in science fiction.”9

Positioning Syn Bio firms as heroic green upstartsready to disrupt the dirty fossil monopolies of the oil, coaland gas industries was a frame that other Syn Bio leaderswere to repeat and reinforce continuously between 2007and 2013. Alan Shaw, CEO of the Synthetic Biologybiofuel company Codexis, claimed that his company’stechnology would, “enable the transition from an oil basedeconomy to what is known as the sugar economy.”

8 www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/gucci-genes--de.html

9 www.icis.com/blogs/icis-chemicals-confidential/2008/01/biology-will-replace-the-petro-1/

10 Shaw Alan, Clark General Wesley, MacLachlan Ross, andBryan Paul. “Roundtable: Replacing the whole barrel of oil,”Industrial Biotechnology, April 2011, 7(2): 99-110.doi:10.1089/ind.2011.7.099

11 Market Research Report, “Synthetic Biology: EmergingGlobal Markets,” Bio066b, BCC Research, November 2011

12 For a discussion of the climate risks of biomass extraction inthe bioeconomy including references, see ETC Group, “TheNew Biomasters – Synthetic Biology and the Next Assault onBiodiversity and Livelihoods,” October 2010, p.19-21.

And that, “biotechnology is a primary driver of thistransition from a 20th century dependence on oil to whatwill be a 21st/22nd century dependence on sugar.”10 Withapproximately two thirds of Syn Bio investments flowinginto biofuels and bio-based chemicals at that time,Synthetic Biology was increasingly presented as

synonymous with a green-tinged post-petroleumeconomy – the so-called “bioeconomy” vision

that might rid the world of fossil fuels.11

It should be noted that even from aclimate protection perspective, there

were considerable problems with thisbioeconomy approach. Extractingthe biomass required for biofuelsand bio-based chemicals involvessignificant land use change, whichwould most likely release carbondioxide and deplete natural carbonsinks. Biomass removal from soilswould also likely necessitate

increased use of fertilizers because oflost soil fertility, and of course

fertilizers can emit significantgreenhouse gases in production and

use.12

A few years later, however, even thissomewhat shaky narrative has shifted, and the

public rhetoric of how Synthetic Biology will supplant theoil industry has nearly evaporated. Today, SyntheticBiology CEOs are touting services to fossil extractioncompanies, or seeking to “add value” to fossil resources,rather than engaging in anti-petroleum posturing.

“Biomassdoesn’t cut it…

Carbohydrates are not a substitute for oil.

I was wrong in that, and I admit it. That will never

replace oil because the economicsdon’t work. You can’t takecarbohydrates and convert

them into hydrocarbonseconomically.”

– Alan Shaw, CEOCalysta, formerly

Codexis15


Shaw, who now declares that he was “wrong,” and that his“sugar economy” vision was never really practical, is todaythe CEO of another Syn Bio company, Calysta, that turnsfracked natural gas (methane) into liquid fuels and otherproducts.13 Edward Dineen, formerly CEO of Syn Biobiofuel company LS9, now heads Siluria Technologies Inc. Their technology uses synthetic viruses to convert methaneinto chemicals such as ethylene. Leading cellulosic ethanolcompany Coskata no longer uses any kind of sugar as afeedstock, only natural gas. Solazyme, a San Francisco bayarea firm that raised billions of private, military andgovernment dollars on the green rhetoric of creating algalbiofuel, today makes most of their income sellingdrilling lubricants to the fracking industry.

In fact, even as Craig Venter was in 2008lecturing the BBC on the climate dangersof taking oil and coal out of the ground,the ink was already dry on a deal he hadmade with BP: to use his company’smicrobes to increase the flow of fossilfuels from oil wells by exploiting thetechnique of Microbially EnhancedHydrocarbon Recovery (MEHR).14

Obviously, even though the rhetoric ofthe post-petroleum bioeconomy still hangsaround the Syn Bio industry, far fromreplacing the fossil carbon companies, thesynthetic biologists are increasingly hoping to be keyplayers in the fossil fuel extraction economy.

The Allure of FossilsSo what changed their focus? In those few years, the SynBio industry has had to mature and diversify rapidly,constantly seeking new markets. As a growing field whose“killer app” is yet to be determined, it has very likelybecome more profitable to play nice with the richestcompanies on the planet than it is to posture about theirdemise.

In turn, those fossil carbon companies are seeing thebenefits in leveraging the powerful technologies ofsynthetic biology for their own activities. This is not as newas it might first appear; in fact, the first patent on agenetically modified organism, the famous Diamond vsChakrabarty case, was for oil spill clean-ups.17 Theextractive industries have always kept a close eye ondevelopments (and opportunities) in biotech.

Probably the main reason for the shift is that the globalenergy story has changed since the early days of thisindustry, forcing Syn Bio executives to reorder what kind of“value proposition” (i.e., money-making product), they can

offer to investors and clients. Back in 2008, high oilprices and growing talk of Peak Oil meant that

in the face of these spiraling costs and for abrief window, biofuels could be pitched to

investors as potential big moneymakers. With oil prices low again, that pitch isno longer convincing. There has alsobeen the subsequent boom in naturalgas enabled by hydraulic fracturingtechnologies (fracking), plus the

opening up of shale gas deposits andcoal bed methane seams. While the

collapse in oil prices and the current gasboom have sidelined biofuels in the energy

economy, these developments have alsoincreased the pressures. Unconventional fossil

resources, such as the heavy bitumen dredged from theCanadian tar sands, are expensive to mine and the playersthere are looking for ways to lower their costs throughinventive technological efficiencies. For the newlystruggling unconventional oil sector, as well as for thenatural gas-producers with plentiful product on theirhands, Syn Bio firms are repositioning themselves asattractive partners, offering potential breakthroughsolutions to their every problem.

“The world seems to be finding

more and more gas, so Ifeel very comfortable withthe feedstock story here.”

- Edward Dineen, CEO ofSiluria, Formerly CEO

of biofuel company LS916

13 www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-30/biofuel-pioneer-forsakes-renewables-to-make-gas-fed-fuels

14 http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/130607.html15 Andrew Hearndon, “Biofuel Pioneer Forsakes Renewables to

Make Gas-Fed Fuels,” 30 April 2013, Bloomberg News.www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-30/biofuel-pioneer-forsakes-renewables-to-make-gas-fed-fuels

16 Ibid.17 US Supreme Court decision, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447

U.S. 303 (1980)

This is the tastiest of the new “value propositions” that SynBio firms are now presenting to the carbon majors: it

would mean that this gigantic industry can nowmore cheaply upgrade the value of its

extracted hydrocarbons, especially naturalgas, by turning crude products into ready-to-use fuels, plastics, cosmetics and evenfood ingredients – all without the huge

social, construction and operating expensesof running refineries. At the same time, engineering biologicallifeforms to serve industrial purposes is

being viewed as a potential newtechnological fix for dealing with other

problems and inefficiencies present inthe extraction, processing and disposalof both fossil and mineral resources.Theoretically at least, syntheticorganisms, if properly designed,might help increase the flow of oilfrom existing reserves; producedrilling fluids; break down minerals

and metal ores; and also help liberatenatural gas. Theoretically (because

despite decades of trying it has yet to beachieved), they could also be deployed in

clean-ups, to break down persistentchemical pollutants or to sequester chemical

wastes and gases such as CO2. Syn Biocompanies, hand in hand with the extractive

industries, are exploring all of these approaches.

The rest of this report addresses the two mostsignificant areas in which the Syn Bio industry isbeginning to advance agendas around fossil fuels andmineral extraction more generally. They are:

Approach 1) Biologically “refining” crude fossil fuels via“gaseous fermentation” to use as a feedstock for theproduction of refined or “drop-in” fuels, plastics, orfood (especially methane and syngas).

Approach 2) Mining by microbe – direct extractiontechniques.


How Might Syn Bio Help Fuel Producers and Extractive Industries?

Syn Bio may be used in the production, use andremediation of fossil resources. It also may beuseful for recovering metals from ores.One way of conceiving of the activities ofthe Synthetic Biology industry that helps topartly explain the technology’s usefulnessto the “carbon majors” is to regardSynthetic Biology as a biological platformfor transforming one carbon-basedcompound into another, using livingorganisms as the agent of transformation.

In some ways, it is a biological equivalentof what's termed the “cracking” ofpetroleum into other useful compounds;that is to say, the thermochemicalprocess which gave rise to the entirepetrochemical industry. In the earlyphase of the Synthetic Biologyindustry, the targeted material(termed “feedstock”), needed to feedthe newly synthesized lifeforms, wasthe carbon found in biomass, that is,sugar and cellulose. Energy andchemical companies partnered withSyn Bio start-ups to explore options forproducing liquid biofuels and “bio-based” chemicals. But for the fossil majors,whose core business is to produce and refineabundant and relatively cheap carbon, biologicaltransformation of hydrocarbons (oil, coal and gas)instead of carbohydrates (plants), was always potentiallymore interesting.

This Syn Bio form of “cracking” provides a means ofshifting petroleum refining from transformingpetrochemicals via heat and chemistry techniques, to whatmight be called “bio-hacking” living organisms, which aregenetically modified so they will release the chemicalresources present inside fossilized hydrocarbons. Normaloil cracking requires operating big, expensive, energy-hogging refineries. Bio-hacking is lightweight, flexible andonly needs a fermenter vat and a handful of reproducingmicrobes.

[The extractiveindustries] can now

more cheaply upgradethe value of its extractedhydrocarbons, especially

natural gas, by turning crudeproducts into ready-to-use

fuels, plastics, cosmetics andeven food ingredients–allwithout the huge social,

construction andoperating expenses

of running refineries.


Approach 1Methanotrophs and “Gaseous Fermentation”: Biologically “Refining” Fossil Fuels For the past century, at the heart of all the power andsuccess of the world's richest industry, the production ofpetrochemicals, are the processes known as petroleum“cracking” and associated “reforming” processes. Bigthermo-chemical facilities refine crude oil or natural gasinto different chemical fractions, that in turn are thebuilding blocks of thousands of valuable compounds, fromplastics to fertilizer and food ingredients, from cosmetics totextiles. These oil “crackers” are the familiar huge refineriesthat transform oil and gas into transport fuels as well asthese higher-value products.

The research we're talking about here is trying to figureout if certain Synthetic Biology or other industrialbiotechnology approaches might in the future be able tooffer a cheaper, simpler and more flexible way to refine oil,coal and gas, with microbes replacing refineries. Thisprospect is being particularly explored for natural gas, sincethere exists a class of microbes, known as methanotrophs(methane-eaters), that are already able to consume methane(the key component of natural gas) as their food; in theirdigestion process it turns, normally, into methanol andthen formaldehyde. Which means that, crudely put, theyeat one chemical and poop out another, a talent of obviousinterest to bioengineers.

By engineering the genetics of methanotrophs, syntheticbiologists believe they can direct the conversion process, sothat a methanotrophic bacteria might consume methanefrom oil and gas wells and then excrete a desired chemicalfor use in the manufacture of plastics, for example, or liquidfuel or food flavourings. This process is referred to as“gaseous fermentation.”18 In essence it's a fermentationprocess, the way yeast organisms ferment sugars into beer,except in this case methane could be fermented into high-value chemicals such as jet fuel or plastics. Otherapproaches include converting methane or coal into syngas(a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbondioxide) and feeding that chemical to engineered microbes.

18 see for examplehttp://calystaenergy.com/technology/gaseous-fermentation/

19 Josh Silverman, “BioGTL Platform for the Conversion ofNatural Gas to Fuels and Chemicals.”http://calysta.com/pdfs/AIChE_final_33114.pdf

20 Yarrow Madrona, “Scientists Seek to Engineer Microbes toMake Simple Chemicals” Synapsehttp://synapse.ucsf.edu/articles/2015/01/09/scientists-seek-engineer-microbes-make-simple-chemicals

A third approach would be to use engineered organisms toproduce powerful enzymes (biocatalysts) that will reactwith methane to make new compounds.

Turning methane from natural gas into high-valueingredients using engineered organisms has a series ofmarket and industry advantages:

1) Natural gas is currently a plentiful and relatively cheap“feedstock” (the food supply needed for the engineeredmicrobes). If the process works, it might be more reliablethan securing a source of biomass, like farm waste. It isalso a concentrated market where, if any of the handful ofoil and gas companies controlling these commoditiesadopted a product, the money to be made, and of course,the proliferation of the new, engineered microbes, wouldboth be huge.

2) According to Calysta Energy, transforming methane tofuels is cheaper, requires less energy and is more efficientthan biofuel processes. Sugar and biomass is only 40%carbon and so, theoretically, only about 30-40% of thefeedstock can be transformed into, for example, a finalbiodiesel. Algae has an even lower carbon content. SynBio developers claim that since methane is 75% carbon,up to 59% of the feed can be converted into a biodiesel.19

The founders of Industrial Microbes point out thatcarbon from methane is four times cheaper than fromsugar.20

3) If synthetic biologists can viably refine natural gas intohigh-value products such as cosmetics, fuels or foodingredients, then the overall value of natural gas as acommodity increases. This would help justify higherextraction costs (e.g. for fracking, shale and coal seamgas), and encourage even more exploration andexploitation. And if coal can be turned into syngas ormethane and then transformed into high-value products,then coal deposits would also become more tempting toexploit.


4) Most significantly, flexible biologicaltransformation potentially addresses theproblem of “stranded gas” faced by the oiland gas industry and turns it into both anindustrial and public relations advantage.Stranded gas refers to gas that is noteconomical to capture and bring to marketand so is routinely wasted – for example, thegas that comes off of offshore oil wells, gasfields that are too remote, or the “associatedgas” that is produced as a by-product of oilproduction. Most of this is usually ventedinto the atmosphere or flared (burned),causing a great deal of atmosphericpollution. Estimates of remote or strandedgas reserves are huge and range from 40 to60% of the world’s proven gas reserves.21

Because Syn Bio fermentation facilities canbe relatively small and flexible, even highlyportable, it may be possible to deploy themto capture stranded gas at its source, and turn it into aproduct such as a liquid fuel that is easier to ship, handleand sell. This is also a possible boon to frackingoperations, which typically only extract a limited amountat each well and need to convert the gas into somethingthat can be shipped out.

The industry of course presents making use of “strandedgas” as an environmental benefit, since the excess gas nolonger will escape into the atmosphere or need to beburned. Vented methane is indeed a significantgreenhouse gas, with 25-34 times the greenhouse impactof CO2. But replacing flaring with Syn Bio conversionmay have an even worse climate impact. This is becausewhen the stranded gas is “upgraded” to fuels, those fuelswill be burned, producing a great deal more CO2 with amore serious climate impact than flaring methane directlywould have (see Box below). Of course, methane flaringis itself a major problem – especially for communitiesnear wells or extraction sites. U.S. Secretary of EnergyErnest Moniz has argued that such natural gas conversiontechnologies, “could be used in a distributed way toaddress natural gas flaring at oil wells, which we know isboth a problem and an opportunity.”22 Moreover, turningstranded gas into a new income stream for oil companieswould very likely give them yet another incentive toexplore and drill oil and gas fields that would haveotherwise been considered too marginal – again drivingup fossil fuel use (and climate change) overall.

DefinitionsMethanotroph - An organism that consumes methane as its principal

source of carbon and energy. Syngas – Synthesis Gas - a gaseous mixture of carbon monoxide,

hydrogen and carbon dioxide produced by thermal treatment of coaland biomass (via the Fischer tropsch process).

Stranded Gas – Wasted and leftover gas from oil and gas fields that isnot economic to collect for market.

Flaring and Venting – The process of burning off excess gas fromindutrial extraction an d refining operations (flaring) or emitting itunburnt as methane into the atmosphere (venting).

Biomass - Living material, especially plant matter, collected for anindustrial production process.

Biosafety – A term that refers to the innate and direct risks oforganisms; often used at various governance levels, especially theUN, about direct risks of genetically engineered organisms.

21 “Stranded Gas Utilization—Methane Refineries of theFuture,” Report prospectus, Feb 2002, ChemSystems, SanFrancisco. See also Chabrelie, M.-F. and Rojey, A., “Prospectsfor Exploiting Stranded Gas Reserves,” Presented at Gastech2000, Houston, 14–17 November.

22 David Biello, “Can Methane Leaks from Fracking Be Turnedinto Valuable Gasoline?” Scientific American, March 5, 2014

23 “EIA voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases program fuelcarbon dioxide emission coefficients,”www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html

24 Kevin Bullis, “Biofuels companies drop Biomass and turn toNatural Gas,” Energy News, Oct 30 2012. See also Chad AHaynes and Ramon Gonzalez, “Rethinking BiologicalActivation of Methane and Conversion to Liquid Fuels”,Nature Chemical Biology. Vol 10, May 2014.

5) Engineered strains of bacteria that convert methane orsyngas into valuable products can also be fed with themethane from landfills or confined animal feeding lots.For public relations reasons, Syn Bio companies workingin the methane-to-chemicals and methane-to-fuels sectoroften talk more about the prospect of capturing andtransforming that kind of landfill gas as a “green”prospect, even though the area of fracked or stranded gasfrom oil and coal fields is a far bigger market.


Methanotroph Biosafety Risks Genetically engineering any organism may give rise tounpredictable and unforeseen effects, often not immediate;and the increased complexity of synthetic biology can onlyheighten these risks. Because such organisms canreproduce on their own and spread throughout thebiosphere, releasing them into the environment (even if byaccident) very much increases the dangers to natural plants,animals and microbes. Such risks may be acute, if anengineered methanotroph that produces these chemicals(which may be poisonous to all other lifeforms) is releasedinto environments high in methane and finds an adaptiveniche or fitness advantage, for example, if bio-engineeredmethanotrophs finds themselves in wetlands or soils withmuch rotted material producing methane in the soil. Someanimals, like cattle, are also significant sources of methane,So if the methanotroph finds a niche in ruminants andreproduces, it may in a worst case scenario produce asubstance such as car fuel or plastic within the animal - thatcould sicken other organisms or alter outputs of milk ormeat. There may of course be many other unknown healthand environmental implications.

Increasing climate risksIn discussions about methane as an energy source, methaneis presented by the fossil industries as a “cleaner” and lesscarbon-intensive alternative to coal and oil. Unburnedmethane as a gas has a higher global warming impact thancarbon dioxide. However, when burned, methane producesless CO2 per energy unit than any other type of fuel(including biofuels such as ethanol).23 Biologically turningmethane into fuels and other high-value products byfermentation may undo that advantage.

For a start, the process of fermentation includes its ownenergy costs and produces CO2 during fermentation; plusmethanotrophs are currently inefficient in transformingmethane to fuels. The end product (for example, a refined,“drop-in” fuel that can be used immediately in cars orairplanes) will have a similar carbon intensity to existingoil-based fuels and when burned emit more greenhousegases than unconverted methane. According to someanalyses making a fuel from natural gas usingmethanotrophs is a process that will currently release moregreenhouse-gas emissions than making fuel fromconventional oil; this is because the production-relatedimpacts must be factored in.

The REMOTE project (see below) is trying to overcomethis problem of higher emissions but has not solved it yet.24

But the deeper problem may lie in moving further into amethane-based economy. Un-burned methane hasextremely high climate impacts. Accidental escape ofmethane from wells, fracking sites and distributionnetworks is a common fact of life already, and can onlyincrease as new uses for methane vastly increase the size ofthe industry.

Syn-CCUS - Methane-based Syn Bio as ‘Carbon Capture, Use and Storage’The focus on capturing flared and vented methane toturn into fuels fits within fossil industry strategies topromote carbon capture technologies. The fossilindustries are increasingly arguing for a “decoupling” offossil fuel energy from greenhouse gas emissions -arguing that new technologies mean the world cancontinue to extract and consume carbon-heavy fuelswhile still reducing overall emissions. To argue this theyare promoting technologies that barely exist and arestill unproven. The prime technology promoted toadvance this paradoxical proposal is Carbon Captureand Storage (CCS) – where waste CO2 gases (e.g. fromcoal-fired power stations) are supposedly captured andsequestered into geological formations. However,achieving pure CCS would be enormously costly andto date there is only one CCS plant operational in theworld. Increasingly fossil industry advocates are alsopromoting a different approach where rather than go tothe expense of burying captured carbon emissions, theyare instead "used" as a feedstock to make fuels, plastics,cement and other materials – thereby making a profitfrom the process. This approach is called "carboncapture use, and storage" (CCUS) – although in thecase of conversion of waste gases to fuel there is noactual storage since the fuel still gets burned andcarbon released to the atmosphere. Capturing methaneand transforming to fuels using Syn Bio instead offlaring it is a perfect example of a carbon capture anduse project. While this will be presented as a “green”benefit, it’s a false solution that ultimately benefits thefossil industry and may lead to a net increase inatmospheric emissions, rather than a decrease.


Syn Bio Companies Get Gas

At this time, it appears there is something of a “dash to gas” within the Synthetic Biology industry, as a significant number of biotech players are clearlytooling up to use either methane or syngas as afeedstock for their synthetic organisms:

Calysta - Headquartered in Silicon Valley’s Menlo Park,Calysta is the most visible company working totransform methane directly into fuels, food and otherchemicals. Using their “BioGPS” bioengineeringplatform (Biological Gas-to-Chemicals and BiologicalGas-to-Liquids), Calysta engineers microbial strainssuch as Methylococcus (a methanotroph) to feed onmethane and produce a variety of compounds. Themicrobes are held in reactor vats that carry out “gaseousfermentation,” the digestion described above. Calystaclaims their Synthetic Biology platform can produceimportant classes of industrial chemicals, such asalcohols, esters, oxides and olefins, which would includeliquid fuels.25 Besides collaborations with the USDepartment of Energy through the REMOTEprogramme, and with US national energy labs (See Boxbelow), Calysta has a 2.5 million dollar partnershipwith the leading bioplastic company, Natureworks, toproduce Polylactic Acid (PLA) from methane insteadof from corn starch.26 This is still in a developmentphase, with both companies announcing in June 2013that they had successfully developed bacteria able toconvert methane into lactic acid (the precusor forPLA).

Calysta also has a “nutrition” arm headquartered inStavanger, Norway, that grows microbes on methane asa base for fish and livestock feed. As they eat themethane, the microbes grow larger and larger. They are70-72% protein by weight, so that material is harvested,dried and used to feed animals.

Calysta plans to introduce its FeedKind™ Aqua proteinfor the aquaculture industry in 2018, to be followed bycommercial feed for the Scottish and Norwegianlivestock industry.27 Calysta claims that the microbes ituses for its animal and fish feed are “naturallyoccurring,” rather than engineered, and will bemarketed as “non-GMO” (as they must be, to find amarket in the EU). Calysta now intends to build amulti-million dollar production facility for its methane-to-chemicals platform. The location is unannounced,but there is speculation, such as the following fromBiofuels Digest: “Where will they build it? Next to avery cheap source of methane. Think: Brunei, theEmirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or in a methane hot spotin the Bakken, Marcellus or Niobrara formations in theUS or Canada.”28

Intrexon - In the past few years, US-based Intrexon,headed by biotech billionaire Randal Kirk, has emergedas one of the most aggressive and fast-growing of theSynthetic Biology companies, purchasing a suite ofsmaller start-ups, which cover production of everythingfrom engineered fish and apples to pharmaceuticals andfuels. Like Calysta, Intrexon boasts a “methanebioconversion platform.” It also uses Syn Bio toengineer the genetics of methanotrophs, to producefuels, chemicals and other high-value compounds,potentially including even pharmaceuticals. As theyput it, “With new genetic circuitry we have enabled themethanotroph to upgrade carbon from its natural foodsource, methane (c3) to more valuable end products.”29

25 http://calystaenergy.com/materials-and-energy/materials/ .See also Josh Silverman, “BioGTL Platform for theConversion of Natural Gas to Fuels and Chemicals.”http://calysta.com/pdfs/AIChE_final_33114.pdf

26 Press Release, Natureworks, “Calysta Energy andNatureworks Annouce an R&D Collaboration to TransformMethane into the Lactic Acid Building Block for Bioplastics,”June 18, 2013.

27 “Here’s how it works. Calysta develops non-GMOmethanotrophs – these are little microscopic critters that eatmethane as their energy source (just like we get carbon from...the foods we eat). Like you, when they consume energy andfood, they grow — in this case, making lots and lots of newlydivided out methanotrophs. The cells are 70-72% protein byweight. That protein is harvested, dried, powdered, anddistributed by BioProtein as a substitute for fish meal.”www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/05/20/goodbye-fuel-from-food-hello-food-from-fuel/see alsowww.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21649441-feeding-farmed-salmon-protein-made-methane-gas-guzzlers

28 Jim Lane, “Goodbye Fuel from food, hello food from Fuel,”Biofuels Digest May 20th 2014.www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/05/20/goodbye-fuel-from-food-hello-food-from-fuel/


In particular, Intrexon has demonstrated its ability toproduce two fuels: isobutanol and farnesene frommethane. As well as a source for diesel fuel, farnesene isalso a chemical precursor to a large range of commonchemicals and natural products, including glues,cleaners, soaps, solvents, fragrances and many others. Tocommercialize its methane conversion technology,Intrexon formed a joint venture called Intrexon EnergyPartners (IEP); and in March, 2014, IEP raised $75million from its partners to help fundcommercialization of its technology forfuels and lubricants.

Coskata - For several years Coskata wasamong the leaders in the race toproduce cellulosic biofuels fromwood chips and other forms ofbiomass, with General Motors, Total,the US government and several largeinvestment firms providing many millionsof R&D dollars. Today, however, Coskata billsitself as focused primarily on turning syngas intoethanol using its own engineered microbes. Coskataoperates a semi-commercial facility in the heart of theMarcellus shale gas fracking region of Pennsylvania.Coskata has been converting natural gas into ethanolsince 2012 and are forthright about the economicreasons for using SynBio to transform gas to fuels.They state: “With natural gas prices of $4/mmBtu, weexpect to achieve unsubsidized production costs wellbelow that of current transportation fuels such asgasoline, diesel and corn-based ethanol. In fact, even ifnatural gas prices were to increase to 4 times today’slevels, we would still be competitive with current cornethanol production costs. By utilizing natural gas as afeedstock, not only can we produce transportation fuelsat a price that creates value for consumers, we can alsobuild much larger plants, because we will not be limitedby availability of biomass within a specific radius. Byproducing at industrial scale, we can have a materialimpact on transportation fuel supply in this country.”30

Coskata claims its process can also be used to produceethylene from natural gas; ethylene is a precursor tovarious plastics.

Industrial Microbes - Established by 3 former employeesof leading Syn Bio Biofuel company LS9, IndustrialMicrobes of Emeryville California is developingmicrobes that will turn a combination of both methaneand CO2 into Malic Acid,31 a widely used industrialchemical used as a sour food flavouring. Like Calysta,

the founders of Industrial Microbes proclaim that“Natural Gas is the New Sugar” touting the

benefits of methane as a feedstock whosecarbon is four times cheaper than carbonfrom sugar. In particular IndustrialMicrobes are pitching their process as a“carbon capture and use” approach

because it will use CO2 as well asMethane. The initial start-up money for

the venture came from CCEMC (ClimateChange and Emissions Management Corp.),32 a

quasi governmental and industry led funding bodyfrom Alberta in Canada (home of the highly pollutingtar sands extraction). CCEMC are tasked with findingtechnological solutions for emissions reduction.Industrial Microbes also received some funds from theUS Environmental Protection Agency.

Newlight - Newlight bills its technology as a “carbon-negative” production process for turning methane andgreenhouse gases into plastic, for use in furniture andother applications. Unlike other Syn Bio companies,Newlight doesn’t use a direct “gaseous fermentation”process to make its “air carbon” plastic, but instead usesan engineered biological catalyst (an enzyme producedfrom a bioengineered organism) that reacts withmethane and air to produce the plastic, supposedly bydrawing carbon out of both the methane and CO2 inthe air.

29 Intrexon News release, “Synbio company Intrexon andDominion partner to commercialize bioconversion of naturalgas to isobutanol in Marcellus and Utica Basins” 20 Aug2015. www.greencarcongress.com/2015/08/20150820-intrexon.html

30 Jim Lane, “Coskata: Biofuels Digest’s 2014 5-MinuteGuide,” March 25, 2014, Biofuels Digest.

31 See http://www.imicrobes.com32 CCEMC/Industrial Microbes News Release, “Industrial

Microbes Wins $500,000 Grant to Turn Greenhouse Gasesinto ValuableMaterials” May 2014..www.imicrobes.com/news/2014%2005%2019%20Industrial%20Microbes%20CCEMC.pdf

...“Natural Gas is the New Sugar”

touting the benefits ofmethane as a feedstock

whose carbon is four timescheaper than carbon

from sugar.


Newlight has received various “green business” awardsand claims to be, “working with Fortune 500 partnersand brand name market leaders to use AirCarbon as amaterial to launch carbon-negative products across arange of market segments, including in automotive,electronics, construction, apparel, and others.”33 TheirAirCarbon plastic is being used by leading US furnitureproducer KI to make chairs and other furniture foreducation, healthcare, government and corporatemarkets.34

Kiverdi - Kiverdi uses engineered organisms that turnmethane into drop-in fuels, oils and custom chemicals,biomaterials and food additives. “Drop-in” fuels, asmentioned, can go into cars and pipelines withoutalteration, working in existing engines. They can alsobe carried over existing infrastructure, unlike ethanol,which requires modifications to the car and, along withbitumen, needs different carrying and handlinginfrastructure. While Kiverdi’s public communicationsfocus on capturing methane from “waste carbon” (e.g.landfills, straw, etc.) this also includes “stranded” gas.They are still in development phase, and are funded byUS government.35

Lanzatech - Lanzatech, originally from NewZealand but now headquartered in the US,has for a few years been using engineeredmicrobes to ferment “waste carbongases” (syngas) from the steel industry,into more drop-in fuels andchemicals. The company is now alsoexploring applying its technology totransforming stranded gas from frackingfacilities and coal mines into high-valueproducts. Lanzatech received 4 million dollarsfrom the US government’s REMOTE programme (seeBox below) to turn methane, via syngas, into fuel andchemicals. Lanzatech presents itself as a “carbon captureand reuse” company.36

GreenLight Biosciences - GreenLight, a Boston-basedSyn Bio company, received 4.5 million dollars of USfunds from REMOTE (See Box) for its methane-to-chemicals programme. GreenLight uses a “cell-free”system; that is, employs synthetic genetic processesoutside of the living cell, to create a bioreactor that canconvert large quantities of methane to fuel in one step.Although GreenLight describes their company’s visionas challenging the extraction of hydrocarbon fossil fuels,they also clearly see their system working at gas frackingsites. As Greenlight explains, “the process uses naturalgas and wellhead pressure to generate the power neededto run the facility. Any carbon dioxide that is releasedin the process is captured, condensed and pumped backinto the well to maintain reservoir pressure and reduceemissions. This technology could enable a scalable,mobile facility that can be transported to remotenatural gas wells as needed.”37

Siluria - Like other companies engineering biology SanFrancisco-based Siluria sells itself to investors and oilcompanies as able to turn natural gas into high valuechemicals. In particular Siluria has perfected a processfor turning Methane into Ethylene – probably the mostwidely used petrochemical available. What is different

from other Syn Bio companies is that the coretechnology is not about gaseous

fermentation but instead viruses are re-engineered to form tiny nanostructuresthat can act as very efficient catalysts inchemistry. The scientist behind thetechnology, MIT’s Angela Belcher, is

almost a rockstar in the world ofnanobiotechnology for her work harnessing

and programming microbes and bacteria. In thiscase engineered viruses rearrange minerals to create apowerful catalyst that turns methane into newmolecules of ethylene.

33 Newlight, “Our Technology: Greenhouse Gas to Plastic.”http://newlight.com/technology/

34 KI news release: “KI to Unveil World's First Carbon-Negative Chair Made with Revolutionary ThermoplasticAirCarbon at Greenbuild 2013,” Nov 20th 2013.

35 Jim Lane, “Kiverdi: Biofuels Digest’s 2015 5-MinuteGuide,” Biofuels Digest, May 11, 2015.

36 Jim Lane, “LanzaTech: Biofuels Digest’s 2015 5-MinuteGuide,” Biofuels Digest, January 13, 2015.

37 GreenLight Biosciences, “Highly Productive Cell-FreeBioconversion of Methane,” ARP-E description online athttp://arpa-e.energy.-gov/?q=slick-sheet-project/cell-free-bioconversion-natural-gas

38 Forbes, “Upstart Siluria Technologies Turns Shale Gas IntoPlastics And Gasoline” 14th April 2-14.-http://siluria.com/Newsroom/In_the_News?Upstart_Siluria_Technologies_Turns_Shale_Gas_Into_Plastics_And_Gasoline#0.

...engineeredviruses rearrange

minerals to create apowerful catalyst that

turns methane into new molecules of

ethylene.


Siluria has received over 120 million dollars frominvestors including oil giant Saudi Aramaco and formerMicrosoft technology chief Paul Allen.38 In April 2015Silurian opened a demonstration plant in Texas, co-located with the facilitys of Braskem – a majorBrazillian chemical manufacturer. That plant is alreadyturning test batches of methane into ethylene andSiluria expects to start running commercial scale plantsin 2017-2018.39

Zuvasyntha - Zuvasyntha is a newly created UK-basedSynthetic Biology company that engineers microbes totransform syngas into higher value products.Syngas can be produced by methanemethods or by gassifying coal orother sources. The company’s firstproject is to create organismswhich will convert syngas to 1,3-butadiene, for cheap, renewablerubber. Butadiene is importantcomponent in the production ofrubber, plastics and copolymerssuch as acrylic.40

Knipbio - Knipbio is a Boston-basedsynthetic biology startup which hasengineered methanotrophic bacteria for fish feed.According to Knipbio, their microbes are about 60 percent protein, and have been genetically modified toclosely match the protein needs of fish. “Instead ofbeer, we’re brewing protein,” says Larry Feinberg, thecompany’s CEO. Knipbio's methane-brewed fish feedalso contains the pigments commonly fed to salmon,but they claim that can be customized to suit differentkinds of fish.

39 Joe Fisher, “Methane-to-Ethylene Plant Comes Online inTexas” Natural Gas Intelligence, 6th April 2015.http://siluria.com/Newsroom/In_the_News?MethanetoEthylene_Plant_Comes_Online_in_Texas#2

40 “ZuvaSyntha: Recycling Cheap Carbon And Waste IntoCommodity Chemicals” Synbiobeta 02/06/2015.http://synbiobeta.com/zuvasyntha-carbon-chemicals/

41 Tamar Haspel, “Finding ways to feed the fish that feed us,”National Geographic, May 13, 2015.http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/13/finding-ways-to-feed-the-fish-that-feed-us/

42 http://arzeda.com43 http://mogene.com

The company seems to be particularly targeting salmon,which can efficiently convert a pound of fish feed into apound of salmon. Salmon are currently fed mostly onsoy, but Knipbio is saying that developing fish foodfrom methane saves on land use: “In a 100-acre facility,we can equal the production of 10,000 acres of soy,”Feinberg told National Geographic.41 Knipbio are oneof a handful of Syn Bio startups who are pitching theirtechnology as a “solution” to unsustainable farming ofprotein.

Arzeeda – Seattle-based Arzeeda corporation usessynthetic biology tools to design new enzymes.

With one million dollars funding fromREMOTE (see Box) Arzeeda is

running a program to developenzymes that can be used totransform methane into complexchemicals and liquid fuels throughfermentation.42

MOgene – St. Louis-basedMOgene green chemicals in

Missouri, working with SandiaNational Lab, received 2.4 million dollars

from the US government's REMOTEprogramme (see Box) to engineer a cyanobacteria

(blue-green algae) to efficiently turn natural gas intothe fuel butanol using energy from the sun.43

Salmon are currentlyfed mostly on

soy, but Knipbio is saying thatdeveloping fish food from methane

saves on land use. Knipbio are one of a handful of Syn Bio startups

who are pitching their technologyas a “solution” to unsustainable

farming of protein.


REMOTE (Reducing Emissions using Methanotrophic Organisms for Transportation Energy)

A common element across a number of companiesand academic groups developingbioconversion of methane to fuels and chemicals is a 35 milliondollar funding program by the USDepartment of Energy’s ARPA-E(Advanced Energy Projects Agency).Known by the acronym REMOTE(Reducing Emissions usingMethanotrophic Organisms forTransportation Energy), the focus of thisprogram is to develop the means to capture“stranded gas” from fracking and otheroil and gas extraction operations.44 Itwould then be employed as a feedstockusing Synthetic Biology and otherbiotechnology methods to convert thatmethane into fuels and chemicals.

The “reducing emissions” part of thetitle is because the intention is that bycapturing and using stranded gas forgaseous fermentaion purposes, ARPA-Ehopes that will displace flared andvented gas. Additionally REMOTEhopes that new synthetic biology-basedmeans to turn gas into liquid fuels canbe developed that do not have the sameheavy carbon-intensive outcomes as themeans of conversion that already exist.

44 http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-programs/remote

45 Mike Williams, “The clean, green gas ofhome” Rice News, Feb 6, 2014.http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/06/the-clean-green-gas-of-home-2/#sthash.HuRIJMM4.dpuf

If Synthetic Biology allows the oil and gas industry to makeeconomic use of “stranded” gas that will increase revenues

from coal seams, oil fields and fracking operations.Photo of gas flare (cc) Kristian Dela Cour

The program is administered by Ramon Gonzalez, asynthetic biologist from Rice University in

Texas. In an interview about REMOTE,Gonzalez explained that the

technologies the program intends toproduce are particularly applicable tothe booming fracked gas market,since they, “will support natural gas

bioconversion facilities with lowcapital cost and at small scales, which in

turn would enable the use of any naturalgas resource, including those frequently

flared, vented or emitted.”45

The focus of theREMOTE program is

to develop the means tocapture “stranded gas”

from fracking and otheroil and gas extraction

operations.


Approach 2 Mining by Microbe: Direct Extraction TechniquesAt a time of significant change in the extractive industries,there is some interest by oil, gas and mining companies toexplore Synthetic Biology and related areas of engineeringbiology for use directly at the extraction end of things.This is not new. A US government review of prospects forgenetic engineering in 1981 identified applications in theoil extraction and mining sector for recombinant DNA –approaches that are still under consideration today.46

While the authors of this report have not been able toidentify current commercial utilisation of SyntheticBiology-engineered microbes to directly access oil, coal, gasand minerals, there is on going research including fieldtrials towards applying new biotechnologies for extraction,particularly for shale oil and natural gas. Below are a few ofthe key areas.

MEHR – Microbial Enhanced HydrocarbonRecovery (including MEOR, MicrobiallyEnhanced Oil Recovery)As the volume of oil production experiences a worldwidedecline, oil companies are increasingly interested in how toincrease production in existing oil wells. Most of the oil ina reservoir is in fact “residual” oil that is largely inaccessiblebecause it is still locked up in the matrix of rock or mineralsthat comprise the oil field. Usually oil extraction at an oilfield will undergo two or three distinct phases: The first isan initial primary phase of recovering the easily availableoil, which gushes forth due to natural pressure of thereservoir. A secondary phase is where water might bepumped into geological formations to flush out additionaloil reserves. Then there is a suite of tertiary recoverytechniques, such as injecting CO2, chemicals or using heat– in what is known as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).

As new oil becomes harder to access, these secondary andtertiary oil resources become increasingly important. TheUS Government’s Department of Energy estimates thatonly 10 per cent of oil is recovered in primary oil recoveryphase, 10-20% is recovered in secondary recovery and that“tertiary” recovery can yield 40-60% more oil from areservoir.47 According to some estimates, this “residual oil”amounts to 2-4 trillion barrels of oil, which is around 67%of total oil resources.48 Some of this amount may becounted in official estimates of existing oil reserves,depending on market conditions and availabletechnologies; but probably most of it is not counted, so itconstitutes a large additional oil resource waiting to betapped. That residual oil is therefore the focus of intensetechnological attempts by the oil industry to unlock it,through various techniques known by that acronym, EOR.BP, for example, speculates that if they can increaserecovery of oil in existing reserves by just 1%, that amountsto an additional 2 billion barrels of oil to sell. BP believesup to a 5% increase is achievable.49

The leading areas of interest for Enhanced Oil Recoveryinvolve pumping gases and chemicals into oilfields.However, also gaining some interest is the use of microbesto coax these fossil resources out of the ground. This area oftechnological development is known as MicrobialEnhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery or Microbial EnhancedOil Recovery (MEHR or MEOR). Similar approaches arebeing pursued to increase the extraction of natural gas(Microbially Enhanced Gas Recovery), and also includeMicrobially Enhanced Coalbed Methane. It has beenestimated that up to 50% of residual oil may theoreticallybe able to be recovered by MEOR.50 If that were proven tobe true, it would expand global oil reserves by 150 per cent.

46 “Impact of Applied Genetics - Micro-Organisms, Plants andAnimals,” US Government Office of Technology Assessment,April 1981.

47 see http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/enhanced-oil-recovery

48 Presentation by Jimoh I.A., Rudyk S.N. and Sogaard E.G,“Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery: A Technology Tool forSustainable Development of Residual Oil,” Aalborg University

49 “Energy Biosciences Institute Adds Microbially EnhancedHydrocarbon Recovery Project,” Green Car Congress 1st April2009. www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/energy-biosciences-institute-adds-microbially-enhanced-hydrocarbon-recoveryproject.html

50 Biji Shibulal et. al, “Microbial Enhanced Heavy Oil recoveryby The Aid of Inhabitant Spore forming Bacteria: An Insightreview,” The Scientific World Journal, vol 2014; article id309159.


The idea of MEHR/MEOR goes back to 1926, when USgeologist C.E. Zobell began exploring the role thatmicroorganisms play under the surface to releasehydrocarbons (oil and gas) from rock. Zobell beganidentifying naturally occurring microbes that degraded oiland made it flow more easily. Since then, over 400 patentsfor MEOR/MEHR techniques have been granted,although few have gone beyond exploratory stages. Oneexample is using strains of bacteria injected into oil wells,along with molasses or other nutrients. The microbes,nourished on these feedstocks, excrete the chemicals thatwill treat the oil; for example upgrading heavy oils tolighter oils, or simply excreting surfactants (soaps) to helpwash the oil out of the rock. To date, more than 322 trialsof MEHR have been reported, and oil companies includingBP, Shell and Statoil, are increasingly investing indeveloping the microbial approach, which, if feasible, couldpotentially operate at a lower cost than other EORapproaches. At least one company, Statoil, is already usingMEHR in its fields in the Norwegian Sea, but is not usingengineered microbes.51

While the practice of MEHR/MEOR is mostlyconcerned with isolating, culturing and re-injecting existingstrains of naturally occurring microbes, oil and gasresearchers are increasingly interested in adding geneticmanipulation to their company’s MEOR/MEHRtechniques. In October 2007, a workshop held in Berkeley’sEnergy Biosciences Institute (EBI) brought together 18scientists and engineers from private companies andacademia, and which also included a Canadian provincialfunding agency, Genome Alberta. They met to develop awhite paper setting out research priorities in MEHR.52 Thegroup included 4 scientists from oil giant BP, as well as arepresentative of Syn Bio company Synthetic Genomics Inc.While the top priorities established were simply to bebetter characterization of existing microorganisms to befound in oil and gas fields, the group also discussedSynthetic Biology research as holding singular promise.

They wrote: “As the science progresses it may be feasible touse the tools of synthetic biology to improve the efficiencyof MEHR.” They gave specific examples, includingengineering a single strain of microorganism that couldcarry out multiple-linked metabolic processes that in naturerequire several species working in collaboration. They alsosuggested Syn Bio could “improve” enzymes and makemicrobes better able to withstand the stresses of thesubsurface environment – such as being able to survive withless nutrients.53 This should be of particular concern forecologists if it imparts a fitness advantage that lets themicrobe persist and reproduce in the environment.

As well as using microbes as miners to actually extract oilfrom rock underground, researchers are also interested inusing microbes as refiners to process and “sweeten” oil,either in situ underground, or after it has left the well. Theidea here is to convert heavier oils such as “heavy crude,” thebitumen of the tar sands, to lighter oils that are easier andcheaper to transport. The International Energy Agencyreports that around 66% of remaining crude oil in reservesis classified as “heavy.”54

Using Microbes to Stimulate Coal Bed MethaneSimilar to the approach of MEOR is a field of activityreferred to as Microbially Enhanced Coalbed Methanegeneration (MECoM) in which researchers are seeking toidentify more methanogen microbes that can collaborate toturn coal into gas. These researchers then either introducethese microbes into coal seams or add nutrients to stimulatethose that are already there. The discovery that around 20%of natural gas originates from microbes has led to increasedinterest in MECoM, with a handful of commercialcompanies beginning to carry out field trials of MECoMapproaches since 2000.55 So far, field trials appear to haveonly involved naturally occurring microbes; but at least onecompany, Synthetic Genomics Inc., has the intent (and apatent) to move towards possible genetically engineeredones. (see Box below).

51 Statoil Website, “Microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR).”http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/OptimizingReservoirRecovery/RecoveryMethods/WaterAssistedMethodsImprovedOilRecoveryIOR/Pages/MicrobialEnhancedOilRecovery(MEOR).aspx

52 “Research priorities in Microbially Enhanced HydrocarbonRecovery (MEHR),” Report of EBI MEHR Workshop,October 24, 2007, Energy Bioscience Institute of UC Berkeley.

53 Report on Project: “Bio-engineering High performanceMicrobial Strains for MEOR by Directed Protein-EvolutionTechnology,” National Energy Technology Laboratory/USDepartment of Energy, December 2008

54 http://www.taxon.com/applications.php55 Ritter, Daniel “Enhanced Microbial Coalbed Methane

Generation: A Review of Research, Commercial Activity, andRemaining Challenges,” International Journal of Coal Geology,05/2015.


Commercial Research into Synthetic Biology for MEHRAlthough we have not been able to identify any provencurrent or imminent commercial uses of SyntheticBiology for MEOR/MEHR or MECoM, the followingresearch initiatives are underway and are relevant:

Synthetic Genomics / BP projectSynthetic Genomics Inc. (SGI) is the private syntheticbiology company established by the controversial genomebusinessman J. Craig Venter. SGI exists to commercialiseSyn Bio research emanating from an ostensibly non-profitoutfit, the J. Craig Venter Institute, with which it sharesfacilities. In June 2007, oil giant BP took anundisclosed equity stake in SGI, accompaniedby what was described as, “a significant,long-term research and development deal”between SGI and BP to exploreMicrobial enhanced hydrocarbonrecovery (MEHR).56 Although publicdetails of the BP/SGI collaboration aresparse, the deal was to be in twophases, beginning with genomicprofiling of the microbes found in oiland gas fields, including coal bedmethane.57 The profiling would befollowed by field pilot studies of the mostpromising bioconversion approaches, andperhaps subsequent joint commercialization. Atthe time of the announcement, SGI president AriPatrinos told Technology Review that SGI and BP wereparticularly interested in finding microbes that couldupgrade heavy oils (like tar sands bitumen), making themlighter and less dense for transport, as well as deployingmicroorganisms that could convert coal seams intomethane. The SGI/BP project was initially focused oncharacterizing naturally occurring microbes.

56 Synthetic Genomics Inc. news release: "Synthetic GenomicsInc. and BP to Explore Bioconversion of Hydrocarbons intoCleaner Fuels," June 13 2007.

57 Emily Singer, “Building a Bug to Harvest Oil,” TechnologyReview, June27 2007.

58 Synthetic Genomics Inc., US Patent no US8448702 B2,“Methods of enhancing biogenic production of methanefrom hydrocarbon-bearing formations.”

59 “Energy Biosciences Institute Adds Microbially EnhancedHydrocarbon Recovery Project,” Green Car Congress 1stApril 2009. www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/energy-biosciences-institute-adds-microbially-enhanced-hydrocarbon-recoveryproject.htm

However, a US patent on MECoM applied for bySynthetic Genomics in 2011 clearly claims ownership of amicrobe for producing methane from coal: “wherein saidmicroorganism expressing said enzyme is a syntheticmicroorganism.” The patent's scope covers use of thesemicroorganisms in a variety of hydrocarbon reserves,including “coal, peat, lignite, oil shale, oil formation,traditional black oil, viscous oil, oils sands and tar sands.”58

EBI MEHR Project (BP sponsored)In April 2009, the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) at the

University of Berkeley, funded by BP, established a newprogram to develop Microbial Enhanced

Hydrocarbon Recovery approaches, incollaboration with BP scientists and

researchers from the Department ofEnergy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laband the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne.59 EBI is part of one of theleading Synthetic Biology hubs in theworld. Besides monitoring and analysingexisting microbial populations, it was

reported that its project would develop a“model framework that future EBI

researchers will be able to use for MEHRmicrobial engineering, [and] on-site biology

manipulation.” The program also established“natural subsurface laboratories” as test sites, including anewly drilled injection well located on the property ofArcher Daniels Midland in Decatur Illinois.

Taxon Biosciences / DuPontIn April 2015, chemical and biotech giant DuPontacquired Taxon Biosciences of California – a biotechcompany specialising in manipulating microbiomes(communities of microbes). Taxon boasts several strands ofdevelopment and application in the oil and gas field,including Microbial Enhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery.

SGI and BPwere particularly

interested in findingmicrobes that could

upgrade heavy oils (like tarsands bitumen), making

them lighter and less densefor transport, as well as

deploying microorganismsthat could convert

coal seams intomethane.


Their core technology is creating so-called“synthetic consortia” of microbes. Theyartificially combine together groups ofmicrobes with specific functions, tomake them cooperate in biologicallyprocessing oil, coal and otherhydrocarbons. Taxon has on goingwork creating these “syntheticconsortia,” to inject into coal seamsto transform coal to methane, as wellas converting heavy oil to lighter oil,or degrading oil under the surface inorder to more easily recover it.

While not a Synthetic Biology company per se,because they are only combining natural

communities in novel ways instead ofengineering their genes, Taxon

maintains an extensive library ofgenetic sequences that appear to berelevant to Microbial EnhancedHydrocarbon Recovery. They boastthat, “new microbes with enhancedproperties to recover residual oil are

currently in development. Thesediscoveries offer the promise of

converting non-economical oil fields intoeconomical resources and extending the life

of mature oil fields.”60

61 Report on Project: “Bio-engineering High performanceMicrobial Strains for MEOR by Directed Protein-EvolutionTechnology,” National Energy Technology Laboratory/USDepartment of Energy, December 2008.

62 F. Zhao et al. “Heterologous production of Pseudomonasaeruginosa rhamnolipid under anaerobic conditions formicrobial enhanced oil recovery,” Journal of AppliedMicrobiology, Vol 118, Issue 2, pages 379–389, February 2015.

63 Sun. S, “Exopolysaccharide production by a geneticallyengineered Enterobacter cloacae strain for microbial enhancedoil recovery.” Bioresour Technol, May 2011;102(10):6153-8.

Non-Commercial Research on Engineered Microbes for MEHR/MEORThe report specifically describes the engineering that

took place as “synthetic biology.”61

A further study by Chinese researcherspublished in 2014 also reported on

bioengineering common oil microbesto produce rhamnolipids for MEOR,a piece of research funded by theDaqing Oilfield Company of

Heliongjiang Province. The researchersconcluded that the engineered organism

had, “demonstrated the potentialfeasibility of Rhl as a promising strain to

enhance oil recovery through anaeriobicproduction of rhamnolipids.”62

A 2011 study, also by Chinese researchers, reported onthe re-engineering of an Enterobacter bacteria andGeobacillus strain to inject into oil fields to produce apolymer substance called exopolysaccharide, Theresearchers concluded that, “this approach has a promisingapplication potential in MEOR.”63

60 see http://www.taxon.com/applications.php

There appears to be on going non-commercial,academic or purely scientific research intobioengineering microbes for MicrobialEnhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery, andthis includes Synthetic Biologyapproaches.

Rhamnolipids Between 2004 and 2007, researchers atthe California Institute of Technologyfunded by the US Department of Energy,successfully engineered new strains of E. coliand Pseudomonas aeruginosa to produce a type ofsurfactant called a rhamnolipid.

The team demonstrated that injecting these engineeredorganisms into oil wells could increase the amount of oilrecovered when the wells are flooded (a common step forrecovering oil). They claim they could recover 42% of theremaining oil after water flooding. In their report to theUS government, the CIT team concluded that, “implantingthis surfactant-making ability in microbes adapted to oilmakes feasible an in situ MEOR process that requires littleoperator maintenance.”

“New microbeswith enhanced propertiesto recover residual oil are

currently in development. Thesediscoveries offer the promise ofconverting non-economical oilfields into economical resources

and extending the life ofmature oil fields.”

- Taxon Biosciences.


Beyond the fossil fuel majors, other mining and extractiveindustries are keeping an eye on Synthetic Biology,particularly in the area of metals extraction. Biomining (orbioleaching) describes the application of microbes tomined metal ores, in order to increase the extraction ofmetals. An acidic solution containing rock-eatingmicroorganisms is added to a heap of mined material. Themicrobes then make their way through the heap, leachingout the metals for easier recovery. Using natural microbesfor this purpose is already a well established technique, andbioleaching currently accounts for an estimated 20 per centof the world’s mined copper, in use at around 20 minesaround the world. A related biomining technique,biooxidation, is also commercially employed for recoveringabout 5% of the world’s gold. Biomining approaches arepresented as more environmentally sustainable thantraditional heat and pressure techniques for processingmetal ores, because of their lower energy requirements.

Oil Sands Leadership Initiative (OLSI) – Syn Bio for the Tar Sands(OSLI) is a network of oil companies active in Canada’star sands extraction region, who are collaborating toimprove the area’s public image and support industryactivities. The network includes ConocoPhillips Canada,Nexen, Shell, Statoil, Suncor Energy, and Total E&P.Since 2010, OSLI has been sponsoring Synthetic Biologyresearch that “addresses oil sands challenges,” offeringsponsorship to several teams of students who compete inIGEM (International Genetically Engineered MachineCompetition – a sort of annual Olympiad for youngsynthetic biologists).

Arising out of its IGEM sponsorship programme,OSLI hosted a 2012 workshop on potential applicationsof Synthetic Biology to the tar sands at theConocoPhillips Canada office in Calgary, Alberta.Participants reported that the goal of the workshop wasto bring together industry representatives and researchersto discuss the current state of research in both petroleummicrobiology and synthetic biology, and to identify areasof common interest for collaboration. In particular the aim was, “to determine what barriers or

threshold conditions that synthetic biology technologiesmust meet in order to be considered by oil sandscompanies for their operations.” The consensus of themeeting was that, “the most important technologyplatforms to continue to look into and which mayprovide early benefits to the oil industry are microbialdegradation/conversion systems (i.e. MEHR/MEOR)and biosensor systems.”64

OSLI’s IGEM sponsorship programme reflects thesepriorities, and focuses on use of engineered microbes totransform heavy bitumen oil into lighter, moretransportable crude, as well as on using microbes forsensing the condition of oil reserves and for helping inenvironmental clean-up.

64 Calgary IGEM, “The Oil sands Leadership Initiative.”http://2012.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Project/HumanPractices/Collaborations

65 OSLI, “Biological Solutions For the oil Sands,” archivedonline at http://2010.igem.org/User:Meagan/Oil_Sands

Synthetic Biomining and Bio-leaching

They are also viewed as a means to make smaller mineseconomically viable and easier to start, as well as to extendthe value of existing mines. Lower grade ores that maypreviously have been discarded or ignored can be recoveredwith these techniques. This means areas previously free ofmining may become attractive to this ecologicallydamaging industry. Teams of Synthetic Biologists are nowalso exploring options for improving the effectiveness ofbiomining techniques using synthetically engineeredorganisms.66 Bioleaching with engineered microbes couldpose significant ecological risks since it involvesenvironmental release.

Universal BioMiningUniversal BioMining (UBM) is a synthetic biology start-upin San Francisco USA who describe themselves as “focusedon applying Synthetic Biology and bioprocess engineeringto the mining industry.” UBM has developed syntheticmicrobes that they claim will improve bioleaching andbioxidation processes for both copper and gold. 66 MIT – Mission 2015, Biodiversity, “Bioleaching: Making Mining

Sustainable.”http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2015/2015/bioleaching.html


UBM’s lead product is a method of recovering gold fromthe tailings (waste streams) of goldmines, and the companyclaims they can recover billions of dollars of additional goldwith their technology. For their Syn Bio copper project,UBM is targeting the 70% of low grade copper ore thatcannot be processed by existing bioleaching method. Theyclaim their technology could eventually produce up to 2 billion dollars worth of additional copper annually, fromlow grade ores previously regarded as uneconomical waste.UBM freely admits that a constraint on the development oftheir technology is that it will involve the environmentalrelease of engineered synthetic organisms; but they expressconfidence that the US Government will grant them releasepermits, despite the lack of regulation protocols orgovernance capable of assessing and overseeing theenvironmental release of such microbes. In 2014, UniversalBiomining’s bioleaching process was evaluated as part of anexercise carried out by Woodrow Wilson Center forScholars exploring the ecological issues in SyntheticBiology.67 In 2012, UBM also partnered with SETIinstitute (that uses computer data from volunteers to searchfor extra-terrestrial life) to receive a $125,000 researchgrant from NASA (the US Space agency), exploring use ofSynthetic Biology for biomining of regolith (dust, soil androck from other planets, including the moon).68

IGEM (International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition)As mentioned above, IGEM is an annual competition orOlympiad for synthetic biologists competing to designnovel applications for Synthetic Biology. There have been afew IGEM teams developing biomining applications:

• 2012 Stanford Brown Team - attempted to engineerbacteria to recover metal ions from electronics or soils,with a view to use in space missions.69

• 2014 University of British Columbia IGEM Team -engineered a Caulobacter bacteria to perform biominingprocesses to separate chalcopyrite, which is the main oreof copper.70

• 2014 HNU China IGEM team – engineered yeast strainsto act as biomining agents.71

Conclusions and Next StepsAs this report makes clear, the self-projected image of theemerging Synthetic Biology industry, as a clean, greenbusiness sector that will help usher in a post-fossil fuel era,is increasingly unsupportable – and probably always hasbeen. Like any powerful technology, entrenched interestsare shaping the new field and leveraging the technology toprotect and boost their own profits and keep the fossils andminerals flowing from the ground.

From injecting engineered organisms into oil wells todeveloping the means to turn fracked and flared gas andcoalbed methane into higher value compounds, theextractive industries are experimenting with Syn Bio intheir R&D strategies as a means of bringing additionalreserves and resources into economic exploitation. TheSyn Bio companies, for their part, are tying their futuresever closer to the fate of the extractive economy, apparentlyhappy to retool themselves to serve the carbon majors.While some approaches, such as Microbially EnhancedHydrocarbon Recovery, are still far from commercialapplication, others, such as bioconversion of natural gas toother fuels, is moving apace. We may very soon findourselves buying methanotroph-derived plastics, fuels,foods and even pharmaceuticals, novel products whosehealth and ecological effects have still been barelyimagined, much less explored. Industry will try to tell ussuch products are “green” because their production capturesand use methane that otherwise would have been flared orvented.

The new, unholy merger of Synthetic Biology with thebig extractive industries warrants very close attention fromanyone who is concerned by fossil industry expansion onclimate grounds, or worried about biotech industryexpansion on biosafety and justice grounds. A dialoguebetween the Climate Justice and anti-biotech movementswould be very fruitful and at this stage, rather urgent.

67 “Creating a Research Agenda for The Ecological Implications ofSynthetic Biology,” Woodrow Wilson Center, 2015.www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/SYNBIO_create%20an%20agenda_v4.pdf

68 “Biomining of regolith simulants for biological in situ resourceutilization.” http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/content/biomining-regolith-simulants-biological-situ-resource-utilization

69 http://2012.igem.org/Team:Stanford-Brown/Biomining/Introduction

70 http://2014.igem.org/Team:British_Columbia/ProjectBiomining

71 http://2014.igem.org/Team:HNU_China


Climate ActionFor those resisting fossil fuel expansion by fracking, whooppose pipelines or new exploration in sensitive areas, thereis a vital need for meetings and discussions about how“gaseous fermentation,” MEHR and biomining arechanging the game. By potentially increasing the value offracked gas and shale oil, increasing the carbon intensity ofmethane-derived products, as well as unlocking 40-60% more fuels from known reserves, this newindustrial strategy truly is potentiallyenormous in its implications for theclimate. Society also needs to considerthe economic, health, environmentaland planetary effects of how MEHRapproaches could extend the lifetimeand boost the fossil fuel production ofall the oil, shale and coalfields thatremain on earth, adding billions of tons tothe soil, water and atmospheric deposition ofCO2. Such conversations should be gettingunderway to help develop appropriate civil society andgovernance response strategies that can address these newthreats and expose them as false solutions. If, at some pointin the future, synthetically engineered microbes are to bedeployed at local oil or gas fields, or are going to be used infermentation facilities close to production sites, then thismay introduce an entirely new class of local risks thatworkers, communities and ecologists will want to betterunderstand. Certainly, even at this relatively early phase,it would be in line with the PrecautionaryPrinciple to demand a moratorium, thatfossil companies do not incorporatesynthetic biology approaches into anycommercial or outdoor operations atthis time, pending more completeassesment that takes all players intoaccount and is independent ofimmediate economic bias.

As COP21 of the Climate negotiationsin Paris approaches, those following thenegotiations need to be on guard that the oil andgas industry might attempt to secure political support for‘gaseous fermentation’, and bioconversion of gas to liquidsfuels and other products.

The industry is already focusing on action to mitigateflaring and venting as a key part of its proposed action planto address climate change. They will attempt tomisrepresent these techniques as a “low carbon, greenoption” because they allow the industry to avoid flaring andventing of methane. It will be argued that capturingstranded gas from extraction operations and turning it intosaleable products through synthetic biology is “carbon

capture use and storage” (CCUS). Civil Societygroups have warned against allowing Carbon

capture and storage (including CarbonCapture and Use) to become part of a

deal at Paris whereby countries side stepreal emission reduction commitmentby pursuing instead set “net zero”targets allowing unproven and possibly

damaging sequestration technologies.Additionally some parties to the

UNFCCC are showing increasing politicalsupport for Enhanced Oil Recovery, under

the guise of Carbon Capture and Storage. Thisgrowing enthusiasm for EOR and CCS must notmistakenly translate into political or social support forMicrobial Enhanced Oil Recovery and the risky release ofengineered synthetic organisms.

Biodiversity ProtectionMeanwhile, the on going processes to evaluate and addressthe topic of Synthetic Biology at the UN Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD) should also addressthe climate and biosafety risks that may

follow from Syn Bio’s switch to pursuingfossil resources and its experimentationwith biomining. The CBD’s SBSTTAcould in particular recommendprecautionary measures be taken, toensure that engineered synthetic

organisms, including methanotrophs,are not released into the environment, and

that engineered organisms for MicrobiallyEnhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery are not

permitted to be released at this time.

The CBD’sSBSTTA could in

particular recommendprecautionary measures be

taken, to ensure that engineeredsynthetic organisms, including

methanotrophs, are notreleased into the

environment,

We may very soon find ourselvesbuying methanotroph-

derived plastics, fuels, foods andeven pharmaceuticals, novelproducts whose health andecological effects have still

been barely imagined,much less explored.

The extreme genetic engineeringindustry of Synthetic Biology(Syn Bio) is shrugging off earlierpretensions that it would usher in a clean, green ’post-petroleum’economy. Now they arepartnering with big oil, coal, gas and mining interests. As the extreme biotech industryand the extreme extractionindustry move towards deepercollaboration, the safety risks andclimate threats emanating fromboth will start to become evermore entangled. This reportdetails this emerging fossil-biotech alliance.

www.etcgroup.org www.boell.de/en

extbio a4report v4 · a quarter century ago, in his groundbreaking book the end of nature,...

Documents