Start-up Gigablue denied law change to push ahead with controversial marine carbon storage

An international start-up wanting to carry out controversial carbon storage research in New Zealand waters has had its request for regulation changes turned down.Gigablue warned it could be forced to stop operating in New Zealand if it did not get the changes it wanted, putting future economic investment here in jeopardy.It wanted marine carbon research to be deemed a 'permitted activity' that could bypass the consent process, and consents for larger-scale, commercial activities to be non-notified.But officials advised government ministers they had seen minimal evidence the company's idea worked or that it was environmentally safe.Government ministers subsequently told the company they did not think that changes to New Zealand's exclusive economic zone rules were warranted.They would need "robust evidence" to consider it again in future.The decision leaves a question mark over Gigablue's future in New Zealand, with no applications for research or other activity lodged since March.The company acknowledged questions from RNZ but did not provide a response prior to publication.Co-founded by four Israeli entrepreneurs, Gigablue is one of a number of start-ups and research groups working in the growing field of marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR).Its business model relies on being able to sell credits on the voluntary carbon market. It has already pre-sold 200,000 credits to an aviation company.If mCDR can be proven to work at scale, then it could be a vital tool to help cool the planet.But experts in marine science and law say all mCDR technology is in its infancy, and is hard to prove, hard to measure, and - at worst - unsafe for the environment.Gigablue's 'microalgae carbon fixation and sinking' method resembles an especially controversial method called ocean fertilisation, though the company contests this.The company's method involves encouraging phytoplankton growth on particles, which store carbon in the deep ocean when they sink to the seafloor.RNZOcean fertilisation involves adding iron or other nutrients to the water to encourage the growth of carbon dioxide-capturing phytoplankton, and is currently commercially prohibited under international protocols.Gigablue says its method differs, because it encourages the phytoplankton to grow within proprietary particles that sink to the deep ocean.Government advisers took a different view in a briefing to the climate and environment ministers in June, which was among documents released to RNZ under the Official Information Act."Officials consider MCFS is likely a form of ocean fertilisation," they concluded."Ocean fertilisation poses potentially long-term, severe, and widespread environmental risks."Those included harmful algal blooms, oxygen depletion, altered food webs, and nutrient depletion."It remains unclear how these risks apply to Gigablue's MCFS technology."This naturally-occurring phytoplankton bloom off the coast of New Zealand was captured by a NASA satellite. Gigablue says its method does not create uncontrolled blooms.NASA image by Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response TeamRegardless of the risk, the company had also provided limited evidence for its other claims, officials said."Officials have not seen any evidence that [Gigablue's technology] can sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for any period of time."Nor had they seen evidence that the technology could transport phytoplankton to the seabed, or that monitoring and verifying any carbon sequestration was even possible.In late 2025, Gigablue published a 170-page methodology in collaboration with carbon removals monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) company, Puro.Earth.Other aspects of its work have been reviewed by Earth Sciences New Zealand, which has also carried out some desktop studies on the company's behalf.Experts in marine science and law who spoke to RNZ earlier this year said those were good early steps, but insufficient evidence on their own.They said there was extensive lab-based and controlled-environment research the company could do to help build its evidence base, before it resorted to large-scale field trials or commercial activities.The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has allowed Gigablue to carry out three small sea trials since 2024 as marine scientific research, which is a permitted activity.It turned down a much larger plan to deploy 1000 tonnes of the company's proprietary particles off the coast of Otago, judging that it amounted to marine dumping and was likely not legitimate scientific research.The trials have so far been unable to track the particles into the deep ocean and the most recent trial in March this year ended early after storms damaged equipment.Gigablue has previously chartered the Earth Sciences New Zealand vessel Kaharoa for its early field trials.Supplied / Eleanor HaighIn a 'stakeholder document' it supplied to officials after the March trial, Gigablue said the current regulations were not fit for purpose and were causing "ongoing issues and delays".It wanted marine carbon dioxide removal activities with "low/negligible impact" on the environment to be classified as a new permitted activity that would not require any consent.Larger scale activities should be classified as a non-notified activity, with no public hearing required for a consent, the company said."The need is urgent," it wrote."If a workable permitted activity framework is not in place before the 2026/27 summer, Gigablue will not be able to proceed in New Zealand."New Zealand was its preferred location, but it was "actively developing or evaluating operations in Australia, Canada, Alaska, and Chile".New Zealand stood to lose out on "substantial" economic benefits if Gigablue left, it suggested.An economic assessment it commissioned estimated the company's development phase could generate 5000 full-time years of work between now and 2029 and contribute $818 million to New Zealand's economy.Once Gigablue's commercial activities were fully up and running, it could create 4000 ongoing jobs and $585 million in GDP a year.The assessment itself cautioned that the benefits were likely overstated, a view shared by ministry officials.The company has previously contracted scientific organisations in New Zealand to review its methods and conduct some desktop studies, and has also chartered local vessels to conduct its trials.However, one OIA document refers to the particles themselves being produced in Australia, while its website states they are currently manufactured in France.Despite the company's pitch to ministers - who it met with in March - they ultimately accepted officials' advice to keep a watching brief on Gigablue and international developments.Climate Change Minister Simon Watts and Environment Minister Nicola Grigg wrote to Gigablue in July informing the company they did not think regulatory changes were needed.RNZ / Nate McKinnon"Having considered the proposal, we do not consider legislative or regulatory amendments are warranted at this time," Environment Minister Nicola Grigg and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts wrote to Gigablue's chief operating officer."The EEZ Act already provides a framework for considering marine scientific research activities … consistent with New Zealand's international obligations."The ministers encouraged the company to keep engaging with the EPA and the scientific community.Publication of research would "assist in strengthening the evidence base for marine carbon dioxide removal technologies", they suggested.Gigablue acknowledged RNZ's request for comment about its future plans in New Zealand but did not supply a substantive reply ahead of publication.Its website still refers to New Zealand agencies, including Earth Sciences New Zealand and the EPA, but its plans here appear to have stalled.The EPA said there was currently "no active communication" between itself and Gigablue and the company had not lodged any new permitted activity notifications or marine consents."The EPA is not currently aware of Gigablue's intentions regarding any future permitted activity notifications or marine consent applications."James Kerry, chief scientist at European NGO OceanCare and adjunct research fellow at Australia's James Cook University, said turning down Gigablue's request was "the only responsible conclusion the government could have reached".Kerry, whose organisation previously raised concerns about the company's approach at an intergovernmental marine law meeting in 2025, said it was not a case of regulation standing in the way of established science."Gigablue is pressing for regulatory changes to enable much larger deployments before the effectiveness, measurability and environmental safety of its approach have been adequately demonstrated," he said."Regulation should follow robust evidence, not be weakened in anticipation of it."New Zealand had already played a constructive role by keeping its fellow signatories to the London Convention and Protocol - a key international marine law agreement - informed of its experience with Gigablue, he said.Its government should now consider ratifying a 2013 amendment to the protocol, which provided an international framework for assessing marine geoengineering activities, he said.